the enactment of workplace mediation in british universities: a...
TRANSCRIPT
1
The enactment of workplace mediation in British Universities: A study of
mediator meta-theory and the integration of practice
By:
Roy Poyntz
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Sheffield
Faculty of Social Sciences
Management School
Submission Date
February 2018
2
The enactment of workplace mediation in British
Universities: A study of mediator meta-theory and the
integration of practice
Abstract
Research in the field of mediation has sought to demonstrate its effectiveness in resolving disputes.
Less attention however, has been paid to how mediators perform their role and how they draw on
theory to underpin and integrate their practice. This study explores mediation as a social interaction
from the perspective of the mediator by drawing on the experiences of 18 workplace mediators in
five British universities and their accounts of practice. The study finds that university mediators
enact the facilitative model of mediation as a relational, intersubjective and co-constructed practice
that is distinct from the theory embedded in the formal model in which most are trained. An
explanation for this difference is found in meta-theory, the overarching philosophy that frames
actual practice rather than practice being composed of strategically selected techniques.
The workplace mediators who participated in this research were relatively inexperienced – fewer
than 20 cases – and the study sheds light on their professional development as they sought to
develop their own theories of practice. The study identifies habitual practice and heedful
performance as stages in this development and characterised by a mediator’s increasing fluency in
interaction. The research finds that mediator learning is currently supported by reflective practice
but demonstrates the role that reflexive practice can play in developing mediator understanding of
interaction, leading the mediator to be intentional in interaction rather than rely on intuition.
Workplace mediation in universities is commonly conducted by co-mediating pairs. Conventionally,
co-mediation is understood as a support mechanism for less experienced mediators. This study
highlights that co-mediation is made effective by relational trust and demonstrates that co-
mediation enhances the delivery of mediation by providing a stage and actors for dramaturgical
performance. In particular, experienced co-mediators were found to perform vulnerability, inviting
the parties to respond by interacting with openness and trust.
3
Acknowledgements
This thesis represents the culmination of a quest for knowledge in the practice of mediation;
something that might enrich both this practitioner and wider communities. The experience of
conducting the research has been reminiscent of the wandering of the tribes of Israel in the desert;
distractions, discouragements but with occasional flashes of light as something of promise emerged.
To seek and search out wisdom has felt, at times, like sore travail (Ecclesiastes 1: 13). This section is
in grateful recognition of those who lightened the journey and spurred the path to completion.
I would like to acknowledge the support of my supervisors, Paul Latreille and Jason Heyes,
throughout this research. Your combination of encouragement and critical analysis has been
essential in bringing clarity to my thinking and writing. You have helped balance my enthusiasm for
the practice of mediation with the leaven of theoretical underpinning.
My wife Izzy has been unstinting in her support, providing comfort when skies seemed their most
leaden. I’m thankful for my family and their understanding, for I have been focused on writing about
interaction rather than practising it with my grandchildren.
I’d like to acknowledge the curiosity and interest shown by many as I have progressed through this
research. In particular, Charlie Irvine who first quickened my interest in mediation theory during the
masters course at the University of Strathclyde.
I’d like to thank my own communities of practice for acting as a sounding board as I tested ideas and
concepts drawn from the research in CPD sessions. In particular, my local community mediation
service, Arch and the Mediation Clinic at the University of Strathclyde.
I’m grateful for all those who participated in the research for your time and engagement. I hope you
find these findings helpful in your development as individual mediators and as you shape and are
shaped by your own communities of practice.
4
Contents
Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 – Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Methods .......................................................................................... 48
Chapter 4 – Mediator Goals and Drivers .......................................................................................... 73
Chapter 5 – Power in Mediation ...................................................................................................... 93
Chapter 6 – Co-mediation .............................................................................................................. 107
Chapter 7 – Mediator Practice and its Intersection with Theory ..................................................... 119
Chapter 8 – Discussion................................................................................................................... 135
Chapter 9 – Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 159
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 181
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 197
Appendices
1 Interview Topics 197
2 Survey Questionnaire 198
3 Coding Structure 199
4 Group Presentation 201
5 Reflective Practice 206
6 Questionnaire Statements 208
7 Pearson Correlations 210
8 One-way ANOVA 212
5
Figures
Figure 1 Experience (cases undertaken) of interviewees .................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Data Generation and Collection ......................................................................................... 59
Figure 3 Analysis Process ................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 4 Participants by Main Role ................................................................................................... 70
Figure 5 Participants by Education ................................................................................................... 71
Figure 6 Participants by Gender ....................................................................................................... 71
Figure 7 Participants by Training Provider ........................................................................................ 72
Figure 8 Contingent Goals................................................................................................................ 91
Figure 9 The Emergence of Heedful Performance as Relational ..................................................... 158
Tables
Table 1 Four Main Models of Mediation .......................................................................................... 15
Table 2 Monological and Dialogical Interaction ................................................................................ 29
Table 3 Communicative Validation (adapted from Kvale, 2007b: 9).................................................. 54
Table 4 Participant Recruitment ...................................................................................................... 62
Table 5 Factor Analysis in Original Research (adapted from Zarankin et al, 2014)............................. 76
Table 6 Purpose of Mediation .......................................................................................................... 77
Table 7 One-Way ANOVA examining Gender Effect ......................................................................... 79
Table 8 Goals of Mediation .............................................................................................................. 80
Table 9 Success Factors in Mediation ............................................................................................... 82
Table 10 Consensus in Statements (Top 5 ranked by standard deviation) ........................................ 84
Table 11 Dissensus in Statements (Top 5 ranked by standard deviation) .......................................... 84
Table 12 Models of Mediation Practice .......................................................................................... 145
Table 13 Dissonance in Practice ..................................................................................................... 147
Table 14 Monological and Dialogical Performance ......................................................................... 157
6
Chapter 1 – Introduction
This study examines the practice of workplace mediation as social interaction from the perspective
of the mediator, drawing on the practice of in-house mediators in five British universities. Mediation
conceived and examined as social interaction is a recognised gap in the literature (Banks and
Saundry, 2010). Consequently, the aim of this research was to produce a better understanding of the
interaction between mediators and the disputing parties and also between mediators as they co-
mediate. What emerges from the research data are themes of performance (how mediators enact
mediation), trust (how mediators relate to each other and the parties) and power (how mediators
use their influence to create a safe space for interaction).
Mediation can be defined as ‘a voluntary, consensual process in which the parties in dispute are
assisted to reach a settlement’ (Genn et al., 2007: 9)1. Mediation is a field that draws on many other
disciplines (Zariski, 2010; Menkel-Meadow, 2013), leaving open multiple possibilities for the
construction of a theoretical framework for research. Mediation is a multi-faceted social interaction
(Wall and Kressel, 2012; Itten, 2017), and yet theorising practice in terms of interaction is rare
(Banks and Saundry, 2010). This research explores interaction in mediation from the perspective of
the mediator by drawing on the experiences of 18 university workplace mediators and their
accounts of practice. The study finds that university mediators take a distinctive approach to
mediation which is relational, intersubjective and co-constructed. By focusing on interaction, this
study contributes to a fresh understanding of the practice and the conceptualisation of mediation.
The practice of mediation can be understood as the enactment of a formal model, a set of skills and
a process learned in a training programme that enables the novice to commence practice. At least
25 such formal models are said to exist (Kressel, 2013) of which the most ubiquitous is the
facilitative model based on principled negotiation (Fisher and Ury, 1997) and utilised by university
mediators. Two critiques of this model are used to frame the analysis of the empirical data. Firstly,
that the formal model represents only one element in understanding how mediators practice and
that personal schema and implicit theory also need to be taken into account (Kressel, 2013).
Secondly, that the facilitative model is ideologically flawed and leads ineluctably to a settlement
approach, and moreover fails to be explicit about interaction and the relational space in which
mediation takes place, a critique which is contained within what are termed second-generation
1 Caution is, however, required with this definition: provided by legal academics, it reflects the practice of mediation in the English civil courts. As the reader will encounter in this thesis, mediation needs to be understood in context and an all-encompassing, singular definition is arguably ‘not possible or even desirable’ (Picard, 2004: 301).
7
models of mediation (Cobb, 2001). The significance of this research is that it represents a new way of
thinking about existing models and the emergence of personal theories of practice as mediators gain
experience.
The research addresses an issue of importance to mediators as they develop their practice: how they
work from the foundation of basic training, learn from the experience of practice and synthesise a
personal theory of practice. The study finds that the practice of mediation in universities represents
an emergent, relational, second-generation approach to mediation but that this arises from the
legacy of first-generation mediation training. There is therefore a dissonance between the formal
model and practice. This finding is expanded upon by exploring the development path for mediators
and defining two stages: habitual practice and heedful performance. Habitual practice, an ability to
execute the mediation process, is a competence in mastering techniques that is supported by
reflective practice. Heedful performance is interactional competence, a fluency in interaction that is
supported by reflexive practice. The study explores both reflective and reflexive practice and shows
how the latter can lead the practitioner to be explicit and intentional in interaction.
Categorising mediation practice as relational conveys an approach where the mediator’s focus is on
the interaction between the parties rather than the solution to a dispute or conflict (Folger, 2008).
The study traces relational practice to dialogical communication, the co-construction of meaning and
an intersubjective process (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2004; Fox, 2007) and maps a settlement
approach to mediation to a monological conception of interaction. Relational-dialogical interaction
and settlement-monological interaction represent meta-theory, the framework which guides the
mediator in selecting micro-practice or techniques such as reframing, questioning or information
gathering. The research demonstrates that the relational practice of mediation is best understood as
an epistemic enactment, i.e. one that relies on meta-theory and parallels a researcher’s choice of
epistemology, rather than a strategic application of micro-practices.
University workplace mediation is commonly conducted as co-mediation, the pairing of two
mediators to provide mutual support. Developing a personal theory of practice suggests a potential
differentiation in style that could impact on the effectiveness of co-mediation. The study finds that
the building, enactment and performance of trust is fundamental to effective co-mediation. Such
trust has two elements: role trust, a commonality of expectation as to what mediation entails, that
maps to habitual practice; and relational trust, openness between the mediators, that maps to
heedful performance. Further, the study shows that co-mediation is more than a support for the less
experienced mediator; it becomes a place of performance that is essential to heedful performance
and a relational approach to mediation. Conceiving of mediation as performance draws on
8
Goffman’s dramaturgical approach (Smith, 2006) and the study shows how university mediators
perform improvisation and vulnerability.
The methodology deployed in this study is interpretive, intersubjective and constructionist. This
marks the study as distinctive from mediation studies that observe practice and seek to test
hypotheses, e.g. an examination of the effectiveness of mediator training (Lieberman, Foux-Levy and
Segal, 2005). The study also differs from those that examine techniques used by mediators and seek
to infer rules and effectiveness, e.g. the use of conversation analysis to explore interactional
competence in mediation (Garcia, 2010). This research represents an examination of the purposes
that drive action, going beyond micro-practice to consider meta-theory. It is also distinctive in
focusing on less experienced occasional mediators, their learning, development and the emergence
of personalised schemes of practice. Research in mediation is said to have become the provenance
of law schools (Wall and Kressel, 2012), with an attendant de-emphasising of social psychology and
the nature of interaction. This research aims to redress this balance by focusing on mediation as a
social process, looking at how the mediator facilitates the interaction and relates to the parties. It is
thus firmly in the field of social psychology albeit from a sociological perspective.
1.1 The Field of Mediation
Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that provides a means for parties in
dispute or conflict to find a resolution on their own terms. It is an alternative to the settlement of a
dispute by a recognised authority such as a tribunal judge, and distinct from other ADR processes
such as arbitration in that the mediator – the neutral charged with running the process – has no
authority to impose a solution. Mediation is utilised in a variety of settings: commercial disputes
which might otherwise be settled in civil court, divorce disputes (family court), employment disputes
(tribunal), and special education needs (tribunal). In addition, mediation is employed as an
alternative to internal disciplinary or grievance processes in the workplace or where no formal
adjudication possibility exists such as in neighbour disputes or in restorative justice.
Mediators typically enter the field by undertaking a training programme of approximately 40 hours
duration (Webley, 2010) that is specific to a particular sector such as family mediation. This
culminates in an assessment and often accreditation as a mediator by a recognised professional
body. Students are expected to acquire key skills and the ability to manage the mediation process
and to demonstrate this in role plays which emulate disputes in the sector (White and Agne, 2009).
Key skills taught in basic training enable the student to facilitate communication with and between
the parties in dispute. Such skills include active listening, summarising and questioning which enable
the mediator to open up an understanding of the dispute whilst developing rapport with the
9
speaker. To these foundational skills more advanced skills are added, such as framing and reframing
which equip the mediator to challenge the parties’ perceptions of the dispute and create the
opportunity for change or resolution (Fisher and Fisher-Yoshida, 2017).
Students are provided with a template for managing mediation as a multi-stage process (Menkel-
Meadow, 2016). The template outlines a sequence of activities, a list of what the mediator needs to
cover at each stage to move from dispute to resolution. The description of these stages varies by
training provider but will typically include an opening phase, an exploration of the issues, a discovery
of interests, a discussion of possible options, and a closing resolution or agreement (Kovach, 2005).
Process management is, however, more than a check list of what to do. Critically, the mediator must
also learn a new pattern of interaction with the parties that positions themselves as facilitators
rather than controllers. This may be an unfamiliar role and markedly different from the norms of
prior professional experience as say a barrister or HR specialist. Accordingly, students are introduced
to, and coached in, the key concept of the mediator as neutral and impartial, not taking sides and
allowing the parties to control the outcome of the mediation.
Mediation is conducted as a private, confidential process to provide an environment where parties
can interact freely in the safe space which is created and sustained by the mediator. Such conditions
have triggered concerns over the potential for the misuse of bargaining power within mediation
(Grillo, 1990; Van Gramberg, 2003). This thesis examines how university mediators recognise and
manage the power extant in relationships between parties and utilise mediator power whilst
enacting the role of neutral and achieving the purposes of mediation.
The set of communication and process management skills together comprise what is termed a
mediation model. One such model is dominant in the practice of mediation: the facilitative model
which draws inspiration from the Harvard Program on Negotiation (HPON) and has a seminal text in
Fisher and Ury’s ‘Getting to Yes’ (Irvine, 2007). Other models have been developed – and are
explored in this thesis – which share a common set of skills but differ in meta-theory, the philosophy
of the purposes of mediation. Such alternative models are yet to significantly challenge the pre-
eminence of the facilitative model. The facilitative model provides a unifying force to the practice of
mediation, although its adaptation for use in each sector has introduced differences in practice.
Consequently, the workplace mediator will recognise much of the practice of the family or
commercial mediator but recoil at some aspects as beyond the bounds of mediation as they
understand and practise it.
10
1.2 The Field of Research
Mediation is a well-recognised method for addressing conflict in the workplace. It has been widely
adopted in the UK, particularly in the Higher Education (HE) sector where the cost of employment
disputes – the visible tip of conflict – is reported to average £400 000 per institution per year (Times
Higher Education, 2014). Mediation in universities is typically provided in-house by a pool of
mediators drawn from staff. Professional development is an issue for these mediators as they may
experience fewer than two cases per year (Poyntz, 2012).
When research focuses on practitioners, a choice must be made as to who should be selected to
provide input and who has sufficient experience to shed light on practice. Commonly in studying
mediators, a bar is set in terms of a minimum number of cases or years of experience. Expert status
is defined as 10 years (Wilson, 2011; Kressel and Gadlin, 2009) or even 20 years (Meyers and Witzler,
2014). Generally, mediators are regarded as ‘experienced’ when they have undertaken between 50
and 100 cases (Goldberg, 2005). Mediators are regarded as ‘highly experienced’ when they have
undertaken at least 500 cases (Raines, Pokhrel, and Poitras, 2013). However, there is a downside in
focusing on experts: it overlooks learning from the less experienced. Studies that focus on expert
mediators have shed light on complex practice schema which have crystallised over time (Kressel,
2013). Studying mediators in their early stages of practice however, as this research does, enables an
examination of the emergence of personal style and consideration of what promotes practitioner
development and the integration of practice.
In some sectors, the less experienced practitioner may be wholly representative of the practice of
mediation. The university mediators who participated in this research were all internal staff; a
common feature of workplace mediation in universities (Poyntz, 2012). They were experienced and
recognised in their main professional roles, but mediation is for them an infrequently practised side
line. As shown in Figure 1, their mediation experience ranges from zero to 20 cases with a median of
eight cases. They acknowledged they were not professional mediators although they aspired to be
professional as mediators (U42) and to move beyond basic training (U3). Lack of opportunity to
practice was seen by these university mediators as an obstacle to learning and development. An
ideal of a case every month was expressed by Anna3 but, in practice, mediators may undertake two
or fewer cases per year (Poyntz, 2012). In this respect they are not alone in the field of mediation: a
2 U(N) refers to a comment collected in a Phase One workshop at University N that is not attributed to a particular participant in the research. Further details of the Phase One workshops and the coding of the universities are provided in Section 3.3.2. 3 Anna is the pseudonym assigned to a participant interviewed in Phase Two of this research.
11
recent report found 56% of commercial mediators in the UK classified themselves as part-timers,
with 80% of this group undertaking four or fewer mediations per year (CEDR, 2016).
A study of university mediators can therefore shed light on the emergence of mediation practice; a
mediator’s transition from being rule governed to confident adaptability in interaction; their
reworking of what has been learned in training in the light of experiencing mediation.
Figure 1 Experience (cases undertaken) of interviewees
1.2 Thesis Outline
This thesis is set out over eight further chapters. The literature review (Chapter 2) examines the
practice of mediation by building a theoretical framework of social interaction from a symbolic
interactionist perspective. This is then linked to mediator style, theories of workplace conflict and
the practice of mediation in universities. The review identified two main areas for research: firstly,
the contribution that a theory of social interaction can make to the systematic integration of
practice; and, secondly how two mediators, with differing styles, can be effective when co-
mediating. The research was undertaken in the HE sector as it represents a sector with a high uptake
of workplace mediation (Poyntz, 2012) and has a particular challenge in mediator development:
providing sufficient casework to foster professional progress. The study was therefore considered to
have potential for high impact and practical relevance.
The methodology utilised in this research, discussed in Chapter 3, is co-constructive and
interpretivist; an approach consistent with mediation as a complex social interaction with multiple
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Cases
Interviewee No.
Median = 8
12
interpretations. Accordingly, the methods employed are qualitative, with an emphasis on semi-
structured interviews and mediator reflection. The core of the data in the study is the accounts of
practice provided by 18 workplace mediators drawn from the mediation services at five British
universities. These recorded interviews have been transcribed, coded and analysed using template
analysis.
The results of this analysis are presented in this thesis across four chapters (4-7). Each chapter is a
cluster of the coded data for four different aspects of how mediators conceive of and perform their
roles, respectively; goals, power, co-mediation and theory. The beliefs and perceptions that
mediators hold about mediation – its purpose, its goals and how success is measured – frame their
behaviour. Chapter 4 explores the goals that drive practice and utilises a questionnaire originally
employed in a study of Israeli mediators. This chapter demonstrates the prioritisation of relational
over settlement goals for the university mediator and points to similarities with the transformative
model.
Chapter 5 looks at how mediators conceive of the use of power within mediation and the positioning
of the mediator in relation to the interaction. It examines the use of micro-practices such as
reframing to demonstrate how mediators exercise power. The chapter shows that university
mediators have a strong sense of mediation as an empowerment of the parties. However, it also
reveals a tension between what mediators are taught in basic training and their disposition to
empowering the parties.
The combination of two mediators with different styles as a co-mediating team is popular in
university workplace mediation but potentially problematic. Chapter 6 focuses on the workings of
co-mediation and the community of practice that supports the mediator. This chapter shows that
effective co-mediation is rooted in two expressions of trust, role and relational, and provides an
opportunity for mediation as performance.
For the practitioner, theory and practice are said to be intertwined (Macfarlane and Mayer, 2005).
Theory guides practice and the experience of practice produces theory. Chapter 7 examines the
theory, both explicit and implicit, that mediators draw on to guide practice. The chapter shows that
mediators’ explicit use of theory is limited while the proprietary acronyms learned in basic training
are influential. The metaphor of conversation, used to describe practice, is explored to produce an
understanding of the meta-theory, the overarching framework, deployed by the mediator.
Conversely, an absence of the use of negotiation as a metaphor flags the practice of mediation in
13
universities as different from other enactments of the facilitative model, a point developed further
in Chapter 8.
The strands from these four chapters are drawn together in a discussion chapter (Chapter 8). Here
the data are synthesised to produce a theoretical framework for understanding interaction and
practice integration. This provides a mapping of university workplace mediation as relational and
dialogical, explores the nature of heedful performance and proposes reflexive practice as a route to
mediator development. Finally, a concluding chapter (9) details the findings of this research and
their contribution to knowledge before providing a set of recommendations for mediator practice,
learning and development.
14
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Conflict is prevalent in the workplace. Research suggests managers spend 30-50% of their day
addressing conflict, whilst 80% of their difficulties within conflict stem from strained employee
relationships (Coleman et al 2013). Consequently, managing conflict is a key organisational
requirement. Formal measures such as grievance and disciplinary procedures may be employed to
address conflict. Alternatively, organisations can utilise forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) including specifically mediation, where a neutral third party assists the parties to explore and
potentially to resolve their differences. Crucially, and unlike grievance and disciplinary procedures,
disputants control outcomes while mediators facilitate the process (Wall and Dunne, 2012).
The origins of mediation as an alternative method of dispute resolution have been traced at least as
far back as its use by guilds in the Middle Ages (Roebuck, 2007). However its introduction, in a form
recognisable in current practice, lies in its utilisation in the United States in the early 20th century for
labour disputes (Menkel-Meadow, 2000). Mediation received further impetus and recognition in the
US when adopted for settling commercial disputes following the 1976 Pound Conference (Kovach
and Love, 1998; Leathes, 2011). Development was further spurred by the academic backing of the
Harvard Programme on Negotiation (HPON) and the 1981 publication of mediation’s seminal text,
‘Getting to Yes’ (Fisher and Ury, 1997; Menkel -Meadow, 2006).
A decade later in 1991, the foundations for the practice of mediation were laid in the UK when the
Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) began to offer mediation skills training. CEDR was
subsequently joined by other private providers who recognised a dual opportunity – training
provision and the delivery of mediation services by their own trained and accredited mediators.
Specific training for workplace mediators followed in 1998 (Doherty and Guyler, 2008) with
workplace mediation receiving a public imprimatur in 2005 when Acas commenced a service
(Latreille, 2011).
Whilst the initial provision of mediation was external – by private providers or individual mediators –
the public sector has shown a preference for internal schemes utilising their own employees (Wood,
Saundry, and Latreille, 2014; Dickens, 2014). In November 2002 the first such scheme was launched
by Bradford MDC (Saundry, 2012). This was followed by the first university scheme in 2003 (Scrine
and Taylor, 2009), West Midlands Police in 2004 and five NHS Trusts in 2006. According to one
provider of mediation training, mediation has now been adopted across all central government
departments (private conversation with author), a move which is consistent with the government’s
15
2001 pledge to use ADR to resolve disputes involving any department (Genn et al., 2007; Latreille,
2011).
The importance of workplace mediation in the UK today can be seen from an analysis of the 2011
Workplace Employment Relations Study which found mediation is widespread – where written
dispute procedures exist – with 62% of organisations making provision for mediation. Usage of
mediation is however lower, with just 7% of organisations employing mediation in the previous year,
although this figure rises for workplaces with more than 500 employees (42%) and those with
experience of tribunal claims (48%). Meanwhile demand for Acas mediation is reported as doubling
between 2004/5 and 2010/11 (Wood, et al, 2014).
Where mediation is referred to amongst mediators without further qualification, it will typically
signal that the facilitative model of mediation is being utilised. However, as noted in Chapter 1, there
are other models of mediation in use and these serve in this thesis as reference points for the
analysis of university workplace mediation. In this chapter, the four main mediation models are
examined and are represented in outline in Table 1.
Table 1 Four Main Models of Mediation
Model Origin Mediator as Usage
Facilitative Harvard Programme on Negotiation; ‘Getting to Yes’
Facilitator Widespread; usually the model deployed if not otherwise specified
Transformative Bush & Folger’s critique of US mediation
Supporter of relational interaction
Most famously adopted for workplace conflict by the US Postal Service. Now utilised by one National Health Service Hospital Trust
Narrative Adapted from Narrative Therapy by Winslade and Monk
Disrupter of conflict story
Australian roots, but now used by one London community mediation service
Evaluative Facilitative Model Evaluator of parties’ positions
Used as an extension of the facilitative model to drive settlement, particularly in commercial disputes
Literature in the mediation field is diverse, drawing on a range of disciplines including anthropology,
sociology, economics, game theory and psychology (Menkel-Meadow, 2013). The literature also
reflects mediation practice ranging from that conducted ‘under the shadow of the law’ (Mnookin
and Kornhauser, 1979) – either court or tribunal – to that of a more relational nature such as feuding
neighbours. This diversity of both theory and practice provides a ‘rich opportunity for cross
pollination’ (Costantino, 2009: 96) but plurality brings problems of meaning. Conflict, for instance, is
16
a term widely used but with meanings that vary according to practice schema (Kressel, 2013) and for
mediators the ‘same words… do not always mean the same things’ (Picard, 2002: 261).
As mediation can be viewed from many perspectives, a choice must be made when building a
theoretical frame. In this review the point of departure is the theory of social interaction as a
dialogical, intersubjective process. This is justified on two counts. Firstly, mediation is a social
practice and how mediators understand their practice is a ‘sociologically significant means of
obtaining insight’(Picard, 2002). Secondly, theorising practice in terms of social interaction is a
recognised gap in the literature relating to workplace mediation (Banks and Saundry, 2010).
Empirical research in the field of workplace mediation is widely considered to be limited but growing
(Bollen and Euwema, 2013; Latreille, 2011; Banks and Saundry, 2010; Bennett, 2014). However,
research in the UK has demonstrated mediation’s effectiveness in the workplace as measured by
settlement rates – defined as closed or resolved cases – reaching 88% (Latreille, 2010) and 83%
(Broughton and Ledermaier, 2014). This metric however, is not entirely unproblematic as – in the
absence of control groups – it begs the question of the counterfactual; how might any given case
have been otherwise resolved absent the intervention? Insights into this question are rare in
mediation, although a recent evaluation of mediation in special education needs (SEN) cases
provides evidence of mediation’s effectiveness (CEDAR, 2017), with 78% of mediated disputes
resolved without recourse to an Employment Tribunal as compared with 64% for those not utilising
mediation. Mediation is further reported to be beneficial in terms of relational repair especially in
the aftermath of disciplinary or grievance procedures (Latreille, 2011). Organisations may also have
wider, more strategic, goals such as changing their culture of conflict and a number of studies have
demonstrated that mediation can contribute to systemic change (Saundry, McArdle, and Thomas,
2011; Bingham, 2012).
Mediation is thus important and effective, meriting its place alongside formal procedures. However,
what makes mediation effective when each case is different? The mediator is core to the process, so
how do they make their decisions? Do mediators rely on intuition – as many claim (Douglas, 2007;
Irvine, 2008; Kressel and Gadlin, 2009; Walsh, 2015; Rooney, 2007) – and adapt their approach
between and possibly within each case, or is there a favoured and fixed style to their practice
(Kressel, 2013)? Studies of mediator behaviour are extensive and yet we know little of mediator
motivation (Zarankin, Wall and Zarankin, 2014), and of how mediators select techniques and apply
strategies. For example empathy is an important mediator behaviour but is this directed to
smoothing the path to settlement or an expression of deeper curiosity (Kressel, 2013: 724)?
17
This review commences with a section on Social Interaction to provide a theoretical frame for
mediation as a collaborative process and insight into the personal schema of mediators. This is
followed by examining the literature on mediator style and examines the formal models and
informal integration that mediators utilise. A third section locates mediation within the literature on
workplace conflict and outlines more specifically the practice of mediation in British universities. In a
final section these streams are drawn together to identify how research can contribute to practice of
co-mediation that appears to have been adopted in most British universities.
2.1 Conflict in the Workplace
Conflict is a term which is widely used but rarely explicitly defined. The reader or listener is left to
derive meaning from the context in which the term is used. Thus, armed struggle, family strife,
environmental protest or industrial strikes all differ but may be considered as examples of conflict.
These examples display two common features. Groups or individuals are set against each other in
competition or adversarial positions. Conflict is viewed as destructive and to be avoided.
In contrast mediation – drawing on Mary Parker Follett, an early pioneer of mediation in US labour
disputes – conceives of conflict as difference, arising from the differing perspectives of the
disputants (Menkel-Meadow, 2000). This de-emphasises the search for blame or vindication which
characterises rights or power-based approaches. Additionally, it opens up the possibility of conflict
being viewed constructively; as an opportunity for learning.
Theorising structural conflict in the workplace follows from a conception of how employer-employee
relationships are, or should be, organised. Four contrasting ideologies are identified by Budd and
Colvin (2014): egoist, critical (radical), unitarist and pluralist. An egoist approach draws on neo-
liberal philosophy, where the relationship between employer and employee is regarded as
transactional in nature. Labour is viewed as a commodity, and each party seeks a price that satisfies
in that it represents their best alternative. Underpinning an egoist frame is the assumption that
labour markets are (or can be) perfectly competitive, enabling conflict to be dissolved within market
clearing transactions.
A critical approach challenges such a faith in the efficacy of markets and is premised on a belief in an
inherent inequality residing in the employer-employee relationship. This critique first developed by
Marx in the 19th Century and represented today by radical scholarship that emphasises unequal
power dynamics that reside in societal structure (Budd and Colvin, 2014). Conflict is inevitable in this
framework as the owners of the means of production seek to exploit workers. Resolution of
structurally embedded conflict requires systemic change. An egoist approach assumes that the
18
interests of the employer and employee are fully represented in the efficiencies of the market. A
critical approach sees the worker as enmeshed in a structure that favours the interests of capital,
one that must be radically transformed if the interests of the worker are to be met.
A unitarist approach to management assumes a communality of interest between worker and
employee. Efforts are therefore made to build and sustain a unity of interest through a Human
Relations approach to management. HR policies are designed to align employee/management
interests, an approach viewed by radicals as a ‘disguised method for imposing managerial authority’
(Budd and Colvin, 2014: 13). A unitarist perspective holds that employees and managers have the
same goals and that goodwill and communication will suffice to diffuse conflict (Edwards, 1986).
Should conflict arise, it is an indication of the poor management of employees; a failure to secure a
unity of interests. This may be remedied by grievance procedures – the imposition of solutions – or,
through participatory problem-solving techniques (Lewin, 2001). In the unitarist approach, conflict
between individuals – relationships that are deviant – is of more importance than the structure of
employer-employee relationship (Budd and Colvin, 2014).
A pluralist approach recognises a diversity of interest and requires measures that enable diversity to
be fairly and effectively managed. Pluralism accepts that conflict is not an aberration, as the unitarist
approach suggests, but is inevitable in that employer and worker interests differ. Conflict is naturally
embedded within the institutional structures of capitalism (Edwards, 1986) and fostered by the
power imbalance between employer and employee. Where the critical approach seeks radical
change of the system, the pluralist approach seeks to redress the power imbalance within the given
system. Trade unions play a vital role in this regard by engaging in collective bargaining and making
possible organised collective action such as strikes. On a wider perspective, the state can intervene
to regulate the employee-worker relationship in the form of minimum wage legislation, statutory
employment rights and dispute resolution agencies.
Dix et al provide a definition of conflict as ‘the discontent arising from a perceived clash of interests’
(2009). Budd et al refer to conflict as arising from difference, either real or imagined (2017). From a
unitarist perspective, management might expect that conflict resolution targets a change in
perception so that parties recognise common interests. Mediation may therefore be utilised to open
up a channel of communication for the parties and create possibilities for mutual understanding.
From a pluralist perspective – where the expectation is that the interests of organisation and
employee are not completely aligned – resolving conflict might be conceived as negotiation between
competing interests that leads towards some form of compromise; a process that traditionally fell to
union and company representatives but where mediation is now potentially deployed (Colvin, 2012).
19
Working forward from theorising structural conflict allows an explanation of the expectations that
management may hold regarding dispute resolution systems. A unitarist philosophy may prioritise
efficiency (Saundry, Bennett and Wibberley, 2016) whereas a pluralist perspective may additionally
be concerned with voice and equity (Budd and Colvin, 2014). However, at this juncture it is useful to
note that any workplace, in practice, may not necessarily fit entirely into any one theoretical
category. Unitarist ideology can coexist with pluralist practice (Geare, Edgar and McAndrew, 2006).
HRM may be the expression of management philosophy in an organisation but a legacy of pluralist
procedures can still remain (Currie et al., 2017). Moreover, structure may provide the context for
understanding conflict in the workplace – a macro view – but actual and potential conflict involves
people and their cognitive and affective frames, perspectives and needs (Budd, Colvin and Pohler,
2017: 8) – a micro view of conflict. The enactment of mediation in any organisation may not conform
to macro level expectations but operate at the micro level – a possibility that this thesis examines.
The conflicts typically addressed by mediation are those that have crystallised into a dispute, where
parties have recognised, or been obliged to recognise, a need to address conflict. Mediation is
usually conducted with a limited number of disputants (often two) although the process can be
adapted for utilisation with larger numbers. One principle of mediation is that of party self-
determination, where disputants are free to decide on the outcome or indeed whether there is any
outcome or resolution. Mediation thus has an individualist, agency focus.
Mediation however, does not take place in the absence of structure; echoing structuration theory
(Stones, 2005) it rather interacts with structure. For example, the presence of employment rights
and grievance procedures provides alternatives to disputants that shape their expectations of and
interaction within mediation. In turn, mediation can impact on structure. This occurs at the micro
level for participants as they generate mutually acceptable norms. It can also be realised at a macro
level to change the organisational conflict culture: examples exist of mediation schemes set up
expressly for this purpose (Nabatchi and Bingham, 2010; Saundry, et al 2011) and the potential for
mediation to effect organisation-wide change is recognised by the UK government (BIS, 2011).
2.1.1 Conflict and mediation in universities
An article (May 29th 2014) in Times Higher Education, covering 70% of British universities, reported
sectoral spending over a four year period on settling employment disputes at £29 million, an average
of £400k per institution. Settling disputes marked for Employment Tribunal averages £15.6k a case.
Universities are however said to be risk averse with only 16% of claims lodged with an Employment
Tribunal proceeding to a hearing, as against 27% for all claims. Whilst these figures – disputes
20
heading towards external resolution – are only a subset of total disputes, it is clear that resolving
disputes and managing conflict are important in the HE sector. This has spurred the use of
mediation, and the sector is reported to have the most developed practice of workplace mediation
in the UK (Bennett, 2014).
The effectiveness of mediation in reducing the costs of dispute resolution is, however, only one of
the drivers for its introduction. An ability to repair relations (Bennett, 2014) and the difficult,
arduous, slow nature of formal procedures (Poyntz, 2012) are also factors. At a more strategic level,
some institutions have justified mediation as an expression of their ethos exemplified in a
collaborative method of addressing conflict (Poyntz, 2012; Bennett, 2014).
Mediation as practised in universities is distinctive in that it often involves conflict between
academics who are ‘highly creative and highly valued but do not always have the people skills’
(Bennett, 2014: 11) and highly individualistic (Yarn, 2014). However, mediation is also required to
serve the wider university staff and in some cases is made available to students (Poyntz, 2012). The
needs of this wide spectrum are typically provided by an internal mediation service, with external
mediation reserved for cases involving the most senior academics (Bennett, 2014).
These internal services depend on university staff trained in the basic (40 hour) mediation skills
training by external providers. In principle, mediators are typically selected from across a university,
although HR staff may be disproportionately involved (Poyntz, 2012; Broughton and Ledermaier,
2014) with only 25% of institutions electing not to train HR staff (Bennett, 2014).
Co-mediation is the preferred practice model in universities; a pragmatic choice that enables
mediators to support each other and gain experience more rapidly (Latreille, 2011; Bennett, 2014).
This is particularly important as universities average 12-15 mediations per year (Bennett, 2014)
whilst maintaining pools of mediators numbering on average 10 (Poyntz, 2012). Thus, any one
mediator may experience as few as two mediations in a year; a number that was mirrored in a
survey of mediators trained by Acas (Broughton and Ledermaier, 2014).
2.2 Social Interaction
Interaction with other people – social interaction – is an everyday experience. Commencing in
childhood we develop patterns and behaviours that enable us to function in interaction without
conscious thought. This can lead to an intuitive approach to interaction where actions are taken
because, in the light of experience, they feel appropriate. Mediators may be no exception, taking
interaction for granted as ‘fish take the sea and birds the air’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 153). This
research however, examines mediation as a social interaction and this requires an exploration of the
21
assumptions that frame the interaction of parties and mediators. Consequently, this section sets out
a basis for conceptualising mediation as a social interaction.
Our interaction with other human beings may occur at various levels. It takes place with minimal
engagement when we coordinate our movements with others in the street by unconsciously
deploying body language. We interpret intentions and respond accordingly, seamlessly avoiding
collision. It can however, be an altogether more complex, joint task – say the negotiation of a sales
agreement – requiring the conscious use of language and speech. For each individual there is a
search for meaning and understanding which in turn forms the basis for further action.
Actions – such as a gesture or speech – which invite a response from the other, are termed
Communicative Action: actions which elicit a response from the other are considered Social
Interaction (Crossley, 1996: 79). Thus, perception prompts action, which frames perception for the
other; forming an interactive loop in which meaning is converged upon. Action in the form of
language is ‘the tool with which we think’ (Crossley, 1996: 38). Or more broadly, we may speak of
‘languaging’, which in addition to language involves ‘gestures, facial expressions, bodily
comportment, manipulation of objects, use of artefacts, etc.’ (Linell, 2014: 59).
Interaction is intersubjective - a connection between subjective individuals. The intersubjective
space formed in interaction is both ‘a site of sharing and agreement, and of competition and
contestation’ (Crossley, 1996: 23).
2.2.1 Theorising Social Interaction
Theorising Social Interaction requires a conceptualisation of the two actors involved – the ‘Self’ and
the ‘Other’ and may be conceptualised in a number of ways providing differing explanations for self
and other and what is accomplished in the interaction. Self emerges and is continuously changed by
interaction in contrast to being structured, stable and determined by external factors.
Symbolic Interactionism represents a sociological perspective within social psychology. Symbols are
the words, objects and acts we use to communicate with, and are interpreted by the other.
Language is important as a symbolic system; a means to describe our thoughts to ourselves and
others. Communicative Action is both overt (with the other) and covert (with the self). Self is not an
entity but a dialogical process between the impulsive, unpredictable ‘I’ and the organised ‘me’
(Lauer and Handel, 1983). Social interaction therefore has a profound significance: not only is it an
important cause of human action, but it is where the self is developed, creating our human qualities
and forming our identity (Charon, 2009).
22
Social interaction involves a threefold process of communication, interpretation and adjustment.
That is to say, an incoming stimulus or message is interpreted before speech action is initiated. The
presence of such an interpretative step distinguishes it from instinct, an inborn biologically
programmed response (Schwinn, 2014).
Symbolic Interaction requires role taking, overcoming an egocentric viewpoint and acquiring the
perspective of the other. The conditions that underpin this as a cooperative process have parallels in
the practice of mediation and can be divided into five sub-processes (Charon, 2009). ‘Ongoing
Communication’ requires the actors to be willing to communicate and mediation provides a safe
space for parties to meet and listen to each other. ‘Mutual Role Taking’ is the willingness to see the
perspective of the other and to take the other into account which can flow, in mediation, from
listening and reflection. ‘Defining the others as social objects’ means a willingness to recognise the
identity of the other and accept that identity as useful for achieving mutual gains. ‘Defining social
objects together’ entails a shared focus of attention that is important to both interactants and
around which action is organised. Finally, ‘Developing Goals in Interaction’ is premised on goals
being similar (or at least complementary) – a condition which mediation can achieve by helping
parties move from the deadlock of positions to consideration of their interests.
Goffman – commonly connected with, but in his own view distinct from, Symbolic Interactionism –
views the self as a performer providing an impression for the other and looking to ‘sustain a viable
image… in the eyes of others’ (Goffman cited in Smith, 2006: 99). This is accomplished by the use of
frames, rituals, roles and metaphors. The focus is on the self and how the self changes in response to
the audience of the other.
Goffman developed this dramaturgical approach further by reference to the arena of performance
(Front Stage) as distinct from the location of preparation and rehearsal (Back Stage). In Front Stage,
the challenge is to manage face (how we present) and interpret cues (how our audience is
responding). As the interaction evolves, there is the delicate task of dropping one’s guard and
adapting to change. This is conducted by way of collusive communication, a guarded step-by-step
movement towards revealing true interests (Goffman, 1959).
Goffman’s concept of self and other is a dyad that could be two individuals or two teams of
individuals. However, he does introduce the concept of third party intervention by a mediator who
performs a discrepant role in being privy to the dark and strategic secrets that each side holds.
Although Goffman is here using the term mediator in a generic sense, there is a parallel with the
practice of mediation. Addressing parties separately (in caucus) provides an opportunity for the
23
mediator to help both sides (Back Stage) to prepare effectively for joint meetings (Front Stage). A
mediator becomes a facilitator of collusive communication, creating the conditions which enable
interests to be surfaced. And a mediator assists in the interpretation of cues by underpinning
listening and inviting reflection.
From a more psychological perspective, Social Perspective Coordination theory offers a cognitive
developmental model in which the individual becomes progressively skilled in aligning their
perspective with the other (Weitzman and Weitzman, 2006). This takes place in four stages.
‘Egocentric’ in which fight or flight behaviour is prominent and the other is viewed as an object
whilst the self is seen as in conflict with the external world. ‘Unilateral’ is characterised by obedience
either granted to, or commanded of, the other. The other is recognised as having interests but the
self is the principal subject of negotiation with interests separate from the other. ‘Reciprocal’ is
rooted in exchange oriented negotiations which seek a balance of interests, although the interests of
self prevail over those of the other. And finally, ‘Mutual’ is where collaboration is active and seeking
to meet the needs of both self and the other is possible.
Ostensibly this final stage maps to the conditions for cooperation in Symbolic Interactionism above,
i.e. there is recognition of the other and their needs. However, the focal point here is the individual –
and their acquisition of skills – and not the intersubjective focus of interactionism. Moreover,
empirical research demonstrates that whilst individuals might have the skills to operate at higher
levels they may choose to employ skills at lower levels because of cultural norms (women socialised
to defer to men) or perceived power differentials (Weitzman and Weitzman, 2000). Social actors
may therefore have the potential to cooperate, but it may require a mediated process to enable that
potential to be realised.
2.2.2 Elements of Social Interaction
Perception plays an important role in interaction. The step of interpretation – according to Shibutani
(1975) – is conducted by drawing on the perspective of a reference group. These groups arise from
the various societies to which we belong – ‘we see reality as a result of the perspectives we take on
through social interaction and the groups whose perspectives we use are called our reference groups’
(Charon, 2009: 37). The mediator must therefore be aware that disputants will draw on a variety of
sources for perspective and that these may sometimes conflict. Some sources may be obvious – say
a lawyer drawing on legal society – but other latent sources may need to be considered by the
mediator. Equally, the mediator themselves must become aware of their own sources of
perspective.
24
Inviting parties to draw on differing perspectives is disruptive and discomfiting, potentially rendering
the self inconsistent or disintegrated (Shibutani, 1975). Disputants are often subconsciously aware
that this occurs within mediation and this can cause anxiety and reluctance to engage. Mediators
must therefore frame mediation as a safe place where participants will be treated with respect. The
pattern for respectful behaviour is usually achieved by agreeing, and then maintaining, ground rules
for the joint meeting.
Emotion is also constructed within interaction and not instinctual; there is a micro-second
processing that occurs before action. When somebody treads on our toes we interpret this act as
aggression or clumsiness before communicating say anger or irritation. Mediators may be more or
less comfortable with the expression of emotion in mediation. They should however see this as
arising from an interaction in which they also participate; they are not detached unemotional
observers.
In both perception and emotion, interpretation occurs rapidly, drawing on established frames of
experience and action to produce what is referred to as ‘social structuration’ (Crossley, 1996: 49).
The interaction is a pre-reflective radical mode of intersubjectivity where we are ‘too engaged to be
aware of either ourselves or of them’(Crossley, 1996: 71). By contrast, an interconnected egological
mode involves a degree of reflective distance which enables the internal dialogue with, and the
development of, the self (Crossley, 1996). For the mediator this egological, reflexive mode finds
resonance in theorising the subject of reflection. ‘Reflection in Action’ is an ability that enables the
most capable mediators to respond effectively to what is occurring in the (mediation) room (Lang
and Taylor, 2000). Professional development requires reflexivity; to be effective this must move
beyond the security of re-examining techniques into a testing of deeper assumptions, a process
termed double loop learning (Argyris and Schön, 1974). The use of reflective practice and the
development of reflexive practice is a topic which is explored further when examining the empirical
data in Chapter 8.
2.2.3 Intuition and Improvisation
Mediators are said to rely upon intuition to guide their decision making (Marshall and Hurworth,
2009; Douglas, 2007; Lande, 2008) and encouraged to use their intuition purposefully (Lang and
Arms, 2017). Intuition represents gut feeling (Katz and Sosa, 2015), a spontaneous response without
apparent forethought (Rooney, 2007) that enables the practitioner to respond to interaction.
Intuition may be viewed as the antithesis of technical rigour or analysis (Schön, 1995) and lacking a
theoretical foundation (Zariski, 2010). However, practice enables previously analytic processes to
25
become intuitive (Pretz et al., 2014), and for the more experienced practitioner intuition becomes a
‘highly developed capacity to synthesize theory and technique into decisions and actions’ (Lang and
Taylor, 2000: 7). Moore and Koning (2015) point out that formalisation and structure work counter
to intuition, boxing the practitioner in and dampening creativity. It might therefore be expected that
intuition is an emergent skill for mediators, something that grows with experience, and the
confidence to act flexibly and adaptively.
Intuition and improvisation are counterparts in interaction. Where intuition is skill in responding to
interaction, improvisation is skill in how to respond. Improvisation is ‘intuition guiding action in a
spontaneous way’ (Crossan and Sorrenti, 2002: 30); a ‘combination of intuition, creativity, and
bricolage’ (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith, 2006: 484), using the resources or techniques at hand to
make a response in the heat of the moment (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011). Improvisation is a
popular metaphor for mediation, conveying working in the moment (Bellman, 2006), a structure that
enables creativity (Cooley, 2007) or performance (Balachandra et al., 2005). Improvisational theatre
is about ‘embracing the uncertain, trusting intuition, acting before thinking, adapting to
circumstances, and working as a group in a process of creation’ (Vera and Crossan, 2004: 701).
Improvisation is both spontaneous and creative (Vera and Crossan, 2004). This distinguishes
improvisation from a spontaneous response to interaction which is patterned, the repetition of
routine action that may characterise the less experienced mediator as they strive to deliver habitual
practice (a term explained in Section 2.5). Good improvisational theatre is said to emphasise process
over outcome (Vera and Crossan, 2004), the interaction of the participants being valued over the
dialogue which is produced. Applied to mediation, the metaphor of improvisational theatre
underlines the importance of the relational. Significantly, where settlement oriented mediators
utilise the metaphor it is in advocacy of more creative outcomes (Cooley, 2007).
2.3 Mediation as an Ideal Process
Communicative Action is conceived by Habermas as an ideal process, ‘an alternative way of relating
to others that does not just use them as means to self-interested goals tied to the necessity of
producing our material needs’ (Ritzer and Smart, 2001: 202). In this he distinguishes it from
Instrumental Action – where an agent does something to bring about a desired end – and Strategic
Action – getting other people to bring about the desired end.
Communicative Action – as theorised by Habermas (Chilton, Cuzzo and Stalzer, 2005) – is a
collaborative process requiring power to be exercised in a manner that enables an integrative
approach. Power is utilised ‘for’ the achievement of gains for both self and other. By contrast,
26
Instrumental and Strategic Action represent competitive processes where power is deployed ‘to’ or
‘over’. Notionally this is the triumph of self over other. However, material gain comes at the expense
of social interaction. In Symbolic Interactionist terms this can therefore be conceived of as a
diminution of both.
Collaborative processes require a willingness and ability to communicate. When conflict arises, there
is ideally an opportunity for learning and growth. More commonly however, communication and
collaboration are disrupted. ‘Conflict tends to destabilize the parties' experience of both self and
other, so that the parties interact in ways that are both more vulnerable and more self-absorbed
than they did before the conflict’ (Della Noce, 2003: 928).
Where Communicative Action fails, parties resort to Instrumental and Strategic Action. Attempts are
made to settle disputes by recourse to power or rights; the latter involving formal processes – such
as a disciplinary procedure or tribunal hearing – where a third party is granted the authority to
impose a decision (Ury et al cited in Lewicki, Saunders, and Minton, 1999). Alternatively, a mediator
may be invited to intervene and facilitate a return to Communicative Action as an ideal collaborative
process.
In the 1920-s, Follett theorised three ways conflict may be dealt with: domination, compromise and
integration (Menkel-Meadow, 2000). Domination is the exercise of power. Compromise – each side
yielding something – may be the outcome of mediation especially if settlement is prioritised;
mediation is effectively driven to instrumental purpose. Integration instead is premised on mutual
gain – Communicative Action in Habermas’ terms – and arises from the trust and fresh perspectives
engendered by collaboration rather than competition. Integration – in the classic illustration by
provided by Follett (Menkel-Meadow, 2013) – is the ability to see an orange as both peel and fruit
rather than divide it in compromise or sequester it by power.
2.4 Meaning and Conflict
Looking at how meaning emerges in interaction again presupposes an underlying theory. Drawing on
Blumer – a leading Symbolic Interactionist – meaning can fall into one of three categories which are
distinguished by how they conceive of the individual and the interaction (Blumer, 1986). Firstly,
meaning can be considered as intrinsic. It is inherent, can be determined objectively and is
independent of the individual. This is a realist approach where social interaction has no relevance.
Secondly, meaning may be achieved by psychical accretion, a progressive layering of perception and
cognition – the psychological equivalent of 3-D printing – within the individual. Thirdly, meaning as
arising within social interaction, the Symbolic Interactionist approach which involves an
27
interpretative process and a tentative interaction with self. Meaning emerges as an iterative process
of external and internal communication – the ‘repeated sequence of perception-action-speech
(spoken thoughts) mutually informing to provide cohesive grip on the world’ (Crossley, 1996: 31).
To illustrate the differences in these approaches, consider the potential problem of cognitive bias; a
skewing of perception that leads to distortions and errors of judgement. If meaning is intrinsic, then
bias can be dissolved objectively by determining the correct view. If meaning lies within the
individual, then bias is a subjective problem that a mediator might help disarm by offering
alternative views. The micro-practice of reframing may be utilised by the mediator to offer a
different perspective to the individual. However, within social interaction, bias is intersubjective and
therefore a mutual problem that requires a joint and not an individual view.
Theorising language has a similar divide between an individual and interactive focus. For the
monologist, ‘language is a means of transferring or transporting messages, ideas, and meanings
from the sender to the recipient’ (Linell, 2014: 62). Dialogical theory however, proposes that meaning
shapes and is shaped by interaction; it is dialogically constructed. We seek meaning from our
interpretation of the interaction and adjust our subsequent action, providing input for the other’s
search for meaning.
There is an assumption we make initially in an interaction that we share meaning; ‘words and
phrases have the same significance for us and the other’ (Crossley, 1996: 85). However, as we
communicate we discover different perceptions and what Coulter terms an interpretive asymmetry
(Coulter, 1975); we see things differently, we are in conflict. This may lead to a battle to establish
our position and undermine that of the other by the ‘negotiation of referential, social, and
expressive meanings’ (Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton, 2001: 654). Alternatively, it can be an
intersubjective collaborative exercise; Communicative Action as conceived by Habermas as an ideal
process.
2.5 Monological and Dialogical in the context of mediation
Mediator behaviour is described as a dichotomy between ‘task-oriented, settlement-focused styles,
and styles with relational foci and objectives’ (Kressel and Wall, 2012: 336). Attending to both styles
is viewed as difficult to accomplish and it is therefore suggested that mediators elect to come down
on one side or the other (Wall and Kressel, 2012). This dichotomy of mediator style can be mapped
to a dichotomy of interaction, monological or dialogical as shown in Table 2.
A settlement approach represents monological interaction; that is where the parties are single
agents trading information (Glenn and Kuttner, 2013). It is predicated on the view that mediation is
28
an individualist ideology (Bond, 2013), drawing on ‘rational liberal philosophies of human nature that
view conflict as a problem to be solved’ (Picard and Jull, 2011: 157). The mediator facilitates an
exchange between individuals that seeks to solve a problem. Information is exchanged leading to
the uncovering of a resolution to conflict. For the mediator, information is gathered to feed mental
mapping, the process of mediators conceiving ‘what they should do to facilitate movement toward
settlement’ (Wall and Kressel, 2016: 15). Practitioners view themselves as gatherers of information,
mining the interaction to gain insight into a dispute so that they can provide ‘the help required to
achieve a resolution’ (Marcoz, 2016: 1). This process is deductive; mediators seek meaning in the
collection of facts, and make formulations (hypotheses) as how to act (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 32).
The questions used to generate information aim to identify the causes of the conflict and to analyse
patterns of behaviour. Questioning can be highly structured and directive as the mediator
endeavours to understand the cause of the conflict (Kressel, 2009). One recent study, using
conversational analysis, found community mediators using solution focused questions (SFQ) (Stokoe
and Sikveland, 2016). These emanate from a mediator analysing the situation and formulating a
solution and are designed to frame the parties’ perceptions of conflict in ways that pave the way to
settlement on terms that mediators endorse. Using these methods mediators may be seen to
‘routinely and unabashedly engage in manipulation and deception to foster settlements’ (Coben,
2000: 5).
In monological interaction the mediator is positioned as a reader of a situation. Interaction becomes
a place of experimentation where meaning and truth are perceived by the mediator (Lang and
Taylor, 2000). In dialogical interaction, the mediator is a co-author (Barge and Little, 2008).
Interaction becomes a place where parties relate to each other and jointly create meaning, the
mediator facilitating a co-construction of reality, ‘a joint process of opening and re-examining
opinions and foundational assumptions’ (Kuttner, 2012: 325). Mediation then becomes ‘an
interpretive and intersubjective process in which “truth” is co-constructed’ (Rothman, 2014: 442).
Mediation is defined in terms which emphasise interaction rather than settlement; interaction is
integral and relational depth is required to move mediation forward rather than interaction
becoming merely incidental, a means to the end (of information exchange). A relational approach to
interaction is inductive, drawing on ‘interpretive philosophies that understand humans as connected
to each other through complex webs of relationships and meanings formed through social
interaction’ (Picard and Jull, 2011: 157).
29
Table 2 Monological and Dialogical Interaction
Monological Dialogical
Approach Settlement Relational
Methodology Deductive working from hypothesis and formulation
Inductive
Information as
Uncovering facts Constructing meaning
Questions as Solution Focused Mediator Understanding Finding the cause of conflict
Interaction focused Inviting recognition
Interaction Place of experimentation
Place of relationship
Parties Single agents Inter-related
Mediator as Reader Co-author
Mediation operates within a discourse that brings meaning to practice, that explains how mediation
is performed in a given context. Discourse represents the general and enduring systems of thought
formed by assumptions that shape practice (Barge and Little, 2008). Mediation discourse is
introduced in basic training. Concepts such as neutrality become ‘an officially sanctioned discourse’
(Kressel, 2007: 276) and notions of interaction are set, ‘if a mediator has been trained by an
institution that emphasizes problem solving, then the mediator is apt to analyse the dispute’ (Wall
and Dunne, 2012: 225). The discourse of mediation is created in basic training and then sustained
and modified in the community of practice (COP). The dichotomy of monological and dialogical
interaction, settlement or relational orientation can be seen as threads throughout the practice of
mediation. As developed further within this dissertation, these modes of interaction provide an
explanation for different enactments of the facilitative model and second-generation models of
mediation.
2.6 Mediator Development
Differences in how interaction is conceived – monological or dialogical – can be discerned in the
philosophy underpinning mediator development. Consider two influential works on the topic of
mediator development: Lang and Taylor’s ‘The Making of a Mediator’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000) and
Bowling and Hoffman’s article ‘Bringing Peace into the Room’ (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000), both of
which propose a 3-stage process of development.
Stage 1: The acquisition of good habits
Both works concur that the first step is the acquisition of basic skills; ‘active listening, reframing,
focusing on interests, prioritizing issues, and helping the parties generate options’ (Bowling and
30
Hoffman, 2000: 7). This is a stage where habitual practice is shaped and skills imparted, traditionally
from a psychological perspective which emphasises individual agency and ‘resonates well with the
notion of highly structured and scripted methods where the expert maker, in this instance a
practitioner, has a clear idea of the problem to be solved and knows how to preside over it’ (Barge
and Little, 2008: 519). Communication skills focus on ‘identifying what people must do… in order to
produce a result and the psychological mechanisms that influence their performance’ (Barge and
Little, 2008: 507). This can however lead to ethical issues as ‘highly skilled individuals can learn how
to manipulate and control situations if they master the rules that govern interaction’ (Barge and
Little, 2008: 509).
At this stage, simple goals such as settlement are prioritised and become the basis for the
assessment of performance; mediators analyse the situation, and when clarity is gained on a
solution, press forwards to agreement. The underlying premise is of monological interaction where
concepts such as neutrality – the mediator being impartial between the parties - are skills to be
learned (Lieberman, et al, 2005) as trainees lack a theoretical framework for interaction.
In a monological approach, professional development requires self-awareness and this comes from
reflective practice, ‘a modernist idea that searches for patterns, logic and order’ (Gray, 2007: 13).
What and how questions are to the fore.
‘Using an internal dialogue, reflective mediators ask questions such as “What other skills do I
require?” “How can I acquire these skills?”’(Lieberman, et al, 2005: 254)
Simple goals such as settlement lend themselves to the development of habitual performance. Habit
is reinforced by the success of reaching agreement, i.e. ’consistency and habit formation can be
explained by reinforcement’ (Wall and Kressel, 2016: 24). Experience of mediation can hone skills
but to progress to the next stage of development mediators need to move beyond the familiar and
the comfortable; ‘habitual cognitive predilections may need to be periodically challenged and
modified’ (Kressel and Gadlin, 2009: 340).
Stage 2: The discovery (or construction) of theory
In the second stage the mediator needs to acquire a ‘greater intellectual understanding of the
process…a deeper understanding of how and why mediation works’ (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000:
24). Similarly, for Lang and Taylor theoretical knowledge enables the mediator to make sense of
practice, providing a frame for further development. Indeed, some commentators have argued that
making theory explicit is ‘at the heart of expertise’ (Zariski, 2010: 207). This deeper understanding
31
and theorising is moreover personal, tapping into the beliefs, and values of the individual. This
theme of self-awareness and expanding knowledge is echoed by other writers:
‘Developing a philosophical approach as a mediator is the result of an expanding
professional knowledge. Mediators must undergo a self-examination process and develop a
unique set of values as well as awareness of their personal perceptions regarding various
approaches in mediation’ (Lieberman, et al, 2005: 242).
Reflective practice empowers this stage in a symbiotic relationship with theory. Accessing theory
allows for richer reflection which in turn helps build a personalised theory of practice that sharpens
further reflection (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 127). Experience of mediation provides the opportunity to
learn from failure but also to ask more than ‘what am I doing wrong’ and to pose ‘why’ questions,
especially as mediators gain a more sophisticated appreciation of goals; ‘…practical reflexivity thus
examines the habitual ways of seeing the world’ (Gorli, Nicolini and Scaratti, 2015: 1351)
Stage 2 represents a staging post towards heedful practice, the mediator building a theoretical map
of practice to equip them to respond in the moment. Concepts such as neutrality are no longer skills
to be acquired (as in Stage 1) but approaches to be explored:
‘Heedful performance suggests that practitioners adapt their responses according to the
uniqueness of the emerging situation’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 512)
Stage 3: The emergence of heedful performance
Whilst the two approaches are similar in effect for the initial phases, they diverge on phase three in
their view of interaction. Lang and Taylor propose a final stage that leads to interactional
competence, a fluency in interaction that is artistic in its quality (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 19). Fluency
is the ability to manage formulation flexibly, rather than impose a standardised rehearsed mediator
formulation, (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 79), i.e. being heedful in interaction by reflection-in-action.
Interaction is still however seen as monological; the combination of the ‘…intentions, interpretations
and behaviours of each person’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 157). Formulations whilst fluid and
constantly changing are still hypotheses. Essentially what is proposed is the acquisition of advanced
skills achieved through reflective processes.
By contrast, Bowling and Hoffman envisage a final stage which is clearly relational. Their goal is for
the mediator to establish their identity, to ‘be a mediator, rather than simply doing certain
prescribed steps’ (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000: 7). Paving the way to identity is relational: ‘the self is
perceived as an emergent, ever-changing product of one’s interaction, constructed within
32
interactions, its values and vision being an ongoing construction in the emergent flow of interactions
rather than set values and perceptions one imposes on the world’ (Glenn and Kuttner, 2013: 14). The
mediator is not a detached observer but intrinsic to the conflict, ‘inextricably involved in the conflicts
they mediate’ (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000: 11). Interaction is viewed as dialogical: ‘mediation is a
process that we can better understand as an integrated system than as a set of discrete interactions
between and among individuals acting autonomously’ (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000: 20).
Reflection-in action is a heedfulness that ‘offers a useful lens for exploring how practitioners know
what to do next’ (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011: 507). In a dialogical approach this is replaced by the
reflexive notion of intra-action to stress that:
‘the human and other-than-human actors in a relationship should not be seen as distinct
entities but as entangled agencies that establish each other as well as being created
themselves’ (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011: 508)
Both approaches are heedful and attend to discourse, but they understand interaction differently
and they approach learning in different ways. Reflection assumes an objective reality; it is a
representational rather than a relational view of knowledge (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011).
Reflective practice is an appropriate response where interaction is viewed as monological and
learning is centred on embedding advanced skills. Conversely, a relational dialogical concept of
interaction calls for reflexivity as a matter of congruity, with the mediator being relational in both
practice and learning.
2.7 Collaboration as a Point of Departure
Mediation is a flexible process that takes many forms reflecting the context of the conflict and the
participants – both disputants and mediator. However, the essential, irreducible core of mediation is
the collaborative process. Mediator efforts – interventions and the exercise of power – are therefore
directed towards establishing and maintaining the conditions for collaboration.
Symbolic Interactionism and Habermas’ Communicative Action provide a theoretical framework for
the conditions which underpin cooperation. Goffman provides a framework for how parties play
their way towards cooperation. Intersubjectivity throws light on the resources which are drawn
upon in interaction and the reflexive process which enables change.
Rich as this theory is, is collaboration an end in itself? Collaboration may be necessary but is it
sufficient? And if not, then what is it a step towards? The facilitative model of mediation
acknowledges cooperation as a necessary condition but reaches beyond this for a goal of settlement.
33
By contrast the transformative model proposes that the achievement of empowerment and
recognition – indicators of cooperation – are all that is required. Meanwhile for the narrative
mediator, cooperation is a pre-requisite for disrupting and reconstructing narrative.
Such mediation models are however constructs; types of ideal processes that do not necessarily
reflect the actual practice of mediation. A mediator’s action is shaped not only by formal models but
their personal schema (Kressel, 2013) – their understanding of goals, their view of interaction and
their worldview and values. This enables them to make sense of their task and decide on how to
employ power – ‘…the power that a mediator can exercise, is likely to vary with the type and
orientation of the mediator, as well as the model or approach that he or she employs’ (Gerami, 2009:
434).
2.7.1 Values
Acting impartially would seem to call for practice which is objective, detached and value-free.
However, when we seek to formulate meaning, values act as our anchor and guide. They provide a
framework for our decision making. They are part of the self that the mediator brings into the
interaction. In psychotherapy, the paradigm of the value-neutral therapist is now seen as untenable
(Jackson, Hansen and Cook-Ly, 2012). Personal values are the foundation for theory and practice
(Lang and Taylor, 2000). An ‘explicitly value-based approach’ brings a richer understanding of
mediation and its practice than ‘purely conceptual understanding’ (Folger and Bush, 2005: 123).
Values however, are ‘schematic and high-level mental constructs’(Hunt, Kim, Borgida, and Chaiken,
2010: 1156) that are not readily apparent without reflection.
How are values formed? For Feather, values are ‘a set of stable, general beliefs about what is
desirable… these beliefs emerge from both society’s norms and the individual’s core psychological
needs and sense of self’ (cited in Eccles and Wigfield, 2002: 121). Values are accreted within a
process of socialisation and in interaction. There is diversity in the values each of us holds and our
values represent our self-identity. The particular mix of values a mediator holds however is not
important per se; what is important is that our values are consistent with our practice (Lang and
Taylor, 2000).
Schwartz offers a set of nineteen core values based on empirical research (Schwartz et al., 2012) and
matches these to the types of behaviour they may elicit. For example, the value of Face evokes a
motivation for security and power in order to maintain one’s public image, while a value of
Interpersonal Conformity prompts compliance with rules, laws and formal obligations. Each
individual is said to possess these values to varying degrees. The nineteen basic values can be
34
clustered into those with a social focus (e.g. benevolence) and those with a personal focus (e.g.
achievement). Within each cluster values complement each other but across clusters may conflict in
any particular context. Thus, whilst we draw on our values to inform our decision making, how we
do so is context specific.
A similar conflict occurs in a dualism of interests and values. Construal Level Theory (Hunt et al.,
2010) looks at the trade-off between material self-interest and values and posits a temporal
perspective where near term focus engenders self-interest and psychological distance appeals to
values. Mediation as a short – typically one-time – intervention may therefore encourage a focus on
interests, often reinforced by asking parties to consider the relief of finding settlement on the day. A
focus on relationships may therefore require the mediator to offer a frame for the longer term.
Concretely what might this mean for mediators? What is the linkage between abstract personal
values and the actions and goals a mediator might adopt? A study of Israeli mediators identified
sixteen orientations which translate personal values into mediation specifics (Nelson, Zarankin and
Ben-Ari, 2010). This research invited those surveyed to rate their response to statements which
point to an instrumental purpose such as ‘mediation is a flexible procedure to resolve a conflict’;
whilst other statements reflect the potential for conflict to be positive (‘mediation is an educational
experience’), life enhancing (‘mediation allows for participants’ moral growth’) and mediation as a
‘way of life’ or ‘perpetuating injustice against the weak’(Nelson et al., 2010: 307). The empirical data
gathered utilising these statements is examined in Chapter 6, shedding light on the goals and
motivations that drive mediator behaviour.
2.7.2 Views of Interaction
When mediators communicate with parties either separately or in joint meetings, they engage in
interaction. How mediators conceive of such interaction affects how they conceive their role and the
performance of mediation. They do so by drawing (consciously or otherwise) upon their own
epistemology, revealed by the frames and metaphors they use to describe the process. Using
narrative and metaphor analysis in a 2009 study Goldberg concludes:
‘… most practitioners enact their worldviews in how they decide what it is important to focus
on (ontology and epistemology) and decide what to do about it (axiology, logic and order,
and ethics), and that those frames shape processes, specifically how they choose to give and
use power in a process.’ (Goldberg, 2009: 427)
Blumer’s analysis of the different approaches to meaning (above) illustrates epistemology in action.
A mediator adopting a realist position will seek to unearth truths behind a conflict – mediation as
35
forensic examination. Drawing the parallel with research, they may behave as detached objective
observers reaching into but never quite part of the interaction. Those operating from an
interactionist perspective in contrast, will seek to enable parties to construct their own explanation
of the conflict.
A mediator’s approach to epistemology however, is conceivably not fixed. It may change as she/he
becomes more experienced, as one study of students suggests (Kessels, 2013). An interesting
question to pose to mediators therefore, is how their view of interaction has changed over time.
2.7.3 Goals
Goals initiate the mediation process and drive behaviour in pursuit of achieving these outcomes
(Wall and Dunne, 2012). Goals may be explicit, articulated for example as objectives of a mediation
service, or may be expressed by participants. These are typically defined in tangible terms such as
resolution that ends a grievance process or settles a claim and may be implicit and connected with
professional and personal values. For the mediator goals might be process related, such as ensuring
collaboration, and outcome related (such as settlement or justice). Goals emerge in social
interaction and may therefore be subject to change. Less concrete objectives such as relational
repair may also emerge and the mediator will need to respond accordingly.
Mediators may perceive that clients want them to accomplish a resolution of the conflict, or at least
a diminution in its intensity; that disputants require them to be attentive and assist in creating
communication between the parties. The parties may additionally require the mediator to
acknowledge there is a justification for their position (Nelson, et al, 2010).
Meanwhile, recent research suggests that mediators focus on just four goals: agreement;
improvement of the parties’ relationship; benefiting the parties as well as society; and improving the
mediation process (Zarankin, et al, 2014). Following multiple goals however, is potentially
cognitively immobilising, the mind freezing and unable to make decisions. As the concept of
bounded reality suggests, there are limits to what the human mind can handle under conditions of
uncertainty and complexity (Simon, 2000). Mediators may therefore simplify by initially focusing on
a single goal, predominantly agreement (Zarankin, et al, 2014). This can be modified and further
goals selected as mediators respond to the interaction (Wall and Dunne, 2012).
Mediator goals emerge in the context of Shibutani’s reference groups (Shibutani, 1975): the
societies we draw on that influence perception and interpretation. One key reference group is the
set of fellow mediators in the practice or service, most especially as they interact in basic and
Continuous Professional Development (CPD) training. Another is the society that reflects our
36
professional background, e.g. lawyer, lecturer or unionist. Goals interact: they may complement or
conflict with each other. Consider the situation of a perceived power imbalance: is this a threat to
justice or to collaboration, or are both legitimate goals for that mediator? Does the mediator act to
rebalance power and does this clash with self-determination as a guiding principle? To address this
last question, we turn next to a consideration of mediator power.
2.8 Power
As noted above, power is a concept frequently associated with conflict. It is typically premised as a
scarce resource to be competed over in a zero-sum game – I gain power as you lose power. Power is
said to be exercised ‘over’; it is the ‘capacity to secure the dominance of one’s values or goals’
(Pfiffner and Sherwood cited in Bell, Walker, and Wilier, 2000: 135). Power can be exercised at both
an individual and a collective level. Within any organisation there is a power struggle between
employer and employee to secure position or resist encroachment and exploitation – ‘a theory of
exploitation is the necessary basis for a theory of conflict' (Edwards, 1986: 53).
Lukes, whilst similarly viewing power as dominance, theorises a dimension of power that is all the
more effective for being exercised without conflict (Piper, 2005). For example, a manager might
manipulate the preference of a subordinate so that they believe a course of action is in their
subjective interest (but against their real interests). However, what Lukes is proposing here is the
absence of observable conflict. Conflict in terms of difference is still present and mediation effective
in helping parties to articulate interests and open up the possibility of generating a resolution based
on mutual gain.
In contrast, mediation is an invitation to engage in power in a distributed, collaborative manner as
power ‘with’ (McClelland, 1975), inculcating collective agency (Bandura, 1999), recognising
hierarchical power but gently steering parties into a different power relationship (Wiseman and
Poitras, 2002). Research into the perceptions of power in the workplace shows people hold two
views of power – limited power and expandable power (Coleman, 2004). Limited power is premised
on the assumption that power is a zero-sum quantity: to share is to lose power. Expandable power is
premised on a cooperative power-sharing orientation where power can be mutually expanded.
Power is exercised ‘with’ in conjunction with other individuals; power is viewed not as problematic
but as an enabler to be harnessed in pursuit of change or resolution.
Power needs to be considered in mediation in two respects; firstly, relational power which concerns
the parties engaging in the mediation and secondly, structural power which relates to the context in
which mediation takes place within the organisation. Where parties in mediation are from different
37
strata in an organisation they may carry perceptions and expectations rooted in hierarchical power:
thus, a subordinate may feel reluctant to challenge their supervisor. Mediation involves
communication – both talking and listening – and ‘low-power parties may not have had as much
ability to communicate or voice their concerns given the constraints power differences can place on
communication’ (Greer and Bendersky, 2013). Research indicates that mediators are aware of these
issues of relational power and take steps to address these (Bollen, Ittner and Euwema, 2011). The
adept mediator will utilise techniques, ‘to encourage the low- power parties to express themselves
freely and the high-power parties to refrain from resorting to their authority to control
communication’ (Wiseman and Poitras, 2002: 58).
Structural power has a more covert influence on mediation. Mediation can be viewed as an
extension of management prerogative (Colling, 2004): the right of management to prescribe the
employer-employee relationship. Within a unitarist ideology, this might permit the discussion of
interpersonal issues but preclude ‘discussion of an issue or person, it prevents discussion about the
nature of the relationship or the legitimacy of hierarchical power’ (Ridley-Duff and Bennett, 2011:
115). Management may exert structural power in their choice of mediation model; parties and the
mediators may accept constraints on what may be discussed, but such an outcome is not inevitable.
Mediation can be enacted in ways which offset structural power. A unitarist ideology may frame
mediation to be an efficient way of settling interpersonal disputes but mediation can be performed
in ways which empower employees (voice) and provide fair outcomes (equity) (Saundry, Bennett
and Wibberley, 2016).
In summary, mediation sees conflict as an expression of human difference which may arise in any
social interaction. As a phenomenon it is thus inevitable but not inevitably destructive. Conflict has
two faces, destructive and creative (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2000; Pondy, 1967), and mediation is an
opportunity to handle conflict constructively. To do so requires collaboration and a different
orientation to power.
2.8.1 Mediator Power
Power can be exerted over both process and content in ways which reflect the style and goals of the
individual mediator. Consider for instance an aspect of process control, namely the ‘ground rules’
which apply to joint meetings. These follow from the assumption that parties must be able to listen
to each other in order to ensure a cooperative process. Mediators may choose to dictate the rules
regarding listening (‘no interruptions’) which will be followed, or they may invite the parties to
38
negotiate rules themselves. Equally, mediators exercise power as an authority when they
subsequently intervene to enforce such rules.
‘Mediators are also invested with a great deal of power by the mediation process. Whether or not
they consciously choose to exercise it, mediators inevitably use their influence at every point of the
intervention’ (Mayer, 1987: 75). Mediators can use power manipulatively (Coben, 2000) to drive
towards settlement, or collaboratively in providing a supportive structure for disputants. The
potential for such power arises because participants typically have no prior experience of mediation
and are dependent on the mediator for expertise. Even a simple choice as to who speaks first in a
joint meeting is an exercise in mediator power. The mediator must choose or leave the decision to
the parties.
Much mediation takes place outside of joint meetings, either as preparatory or as caucus meetings
(Menkel-Meadow, 2015). This allows the mediator privileged access to information, which is a
potent source of power (Shapira, 2009). This shapes the interaction with the parties and influences
the information they divulge. It also presents the mediator with choices as to how and when they
might use information that parties have agreed might be shared. Information might be used
strategically as an inducement towards settlement – or withheld if unhelpful – or divulged
immediately.
Framing and reframing are important mediator tools that seek to influence participants. How the
mediator frames the process is important in managing expectations: mediation might be framed as
‘a last chance for settlement’ or alternatively as ‘a constructive conversation’. In summarising a
participant’s input, a mediator has the opportunity to reframe, to emphasise positive elements or to
offer an alternative view.
Reframing as an invitation to adopt a different perspective invites the question of what are
legitimate perspectives in an ideal process. The principles of Communicative Action would suggest
the perspective of the other is valid; the concept of multiple reference groups allows that alternative
perspectives may be available within the self. A mediator who reframes with these perspectives in
mind – deferring to the parties – is following a power ‘with’ approach. The obvious danger is that the
mediator imposes their own perspective to achieve an instrumental purpose such as settlement.
In principle there is a divide in mediation between process and content. The mediator is said to be in
charge of the process and the parties in charge of content, although the transformative model (see
below) is an exception as it aims to place the parties in control of both process and content.
Mediator power may extend however into content areas, particularly if a concrete resolution of a
39
dispute is seen as a desirable goal. In pursuit of this aim a mediator may influence what is discussed,
possibly restricting issues to ‘what can be settled here today’. Alternatively, a mediator might
employ a directive technique such as ‘reality testing’ to weaken resistance to agreement.
A study of mediators participating in a mandatory mediation programme found some quite
distinctive views of mediator power:
‘The first group viewed power as the ability to impose one’s will on another through use of
subject expertise; the second group adopted this definition but also indicated that the idea of
power encompasses the ability to manage the issue agenda; and the third approach to
power encapsulated the two preceding frameworks but added that the idea of power also
includes the capacity to shape interests and preferences’ (Hanycz cited in Gerami, 2009: 440)
We might of course expect a compulsory programme to be directive, but this response illustrates a
tension in the type of power exercised by the mediator. Returning to Habermas, using power ‘over’
for instrumental reasons (settlement) is perhaps understandable but inconsistent with
Communicative Action and power ‘with’. Some degree of power ‘over’ by the mediator may be
inevitable, especially to set the process in motion, but we might expect that use of this type of
power would diminish as collaboration embeds. Alternatively, the choice a mediator makes
regarding power may inform as to their goals, values, style and view of interaction.
2.9 Mediator Style
Throughout mediation, a mediator must make judgements about which process to follow. They must
select which of 100 identified techniques (Wall and Dunne, 2012) is most appropriate, or possibly sit
back whilst remaining an engaged but observant listener. Responding to an interaction which may
involve high emotion and tension, being in the moment, whilst holding a mental map of potential
routes to resolution is a demanding task. This calls for simplification which is achieved by the
adoption of a personal style (Wall and Kressel, 2012).
Style is not fixed and may, with experience, become increasingly flexible. Research finds that
mediators can be categorised as operating with either a simple or a complex schema (Kressel, 2013).
A simple schema is portrayed as less stressful, relying on formal models, simpler intervention
strategies and ‘linear’ procedural scripts. A complex schema is less reliant on formal models and
utilises a diversity of intervention strategies. The latter is accompanied by more decisional stress as
mediators have a greater array of choices and possible objectives. The path to a complex schema is
reflective learning and, in a virtuous loop, those with complex schema are more open to such
learning. A majority of mediators present themselves as stylistically eclectic (Charkoudian and Ritis,
40
2009) and so may aspire to complex schema. However, Kressel’s research suggests either approach
is effective provided it is exercised skilfully.
Mediator style combines formal models of practice and informal personal schema, a ‘structured
aggregation of personal insights that individuals acquire over time based on their experiences’
(Zarankin, et al, 2014: 141). Models operate at a conscious explicit level and personal schema at an
implicit non-conscious level (Kressel, 2013). Personal schema , described as ‘largely hidden…and the
cognitive underbelly of practice’ (Kressel, 2013: 722), are explored above in the section Social
Interaction. In this section we next turn to formal models and what these mean for the practice of
mediation.
The number of formal models available to the mediator has been reported to exceed 25 (Kressel,
2013). However this review will concentrate on four main models (Kressel and Wall, 2012). These
can be distinguished from each other by their explanations of conflict and power and the role they
expect of the mediator.
2.9.1 Four Main Models
The main model is facilitative, an approach alternatively labelled as problem-solving. So
predominant is the facilitative model that disputants (Relis, 2005), and in some circumstances
mediators, may be unaware that their experience of mediation draws on this methodology. Conflict
is seen as arising from disputants becoming locked into positions. Resolution lies in facilitating the
parties to examine the true interests which lie behind these positions. This is achieved in a
collaborative (power ‘with’) process where parties develop options for mutual gain. The model
draws on negotiation theory reflecting the background of its academic developers in the Harvard
Program on Negotiation (Menkel-Meadow, 2013).
In this model the mediator is expected to control the process, providing a framework for the parties
to negotiate. Whilst initially developed for use in the early 20th century for labour disputes in the US,
it is now employed in settings that range from court-annexed to family and neighbour disputes. It is
grounded in the four elements of principled negotiation (Fisher and Ury, 1997):
Separating the people from the problem – i.e. focusing on issues and not personal
antagonism
Focus on interests and not positions – positions lock parties into the dispute whereas
interests enable them to gain a fresh perspective
41
Invent options for mutual gain – here the emphasis is on both mutuality and the future.
Where do the parties wish to be, what new norms do they want to set?
Insist on objective criteria – finding a basis ‘independent of the will of either side’ (Fisher and
Ury, 1983: xii)
Principled negotiation was formulated in an era where some negotiators in the legal and labour
fields were striving for a less adversarial approach (Menkel-Meadow, 2013). It represents the
assimilation by Fisher and Ury of several strands of negotiation theory including insights from social
psychology (Menkel-Meadow, 2006). One major influence on Fisher and Ury’s thinking is the work of
Walton and McKersie (1965). They are credited (Wheeler and Waters, 2006) with the concept of
integrative interest-based negotiation – the cooperative value creating aspect of the process – as
distinct from distributive negotiation, its competitive value claiming counterpart (McKersie and
Walton, 1992).
Raiffa’s work in game theory (Raiffa, 1982) is said to have led Fisher and Ury to the concept of
BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiation) (Wheeler and Waters, 2006). Crucially however, principled
negotiation does not neglect the social interaction that takes place within negotiation. This approach
acknowledges a further key insight attributed to Walton and McKersie; the concept of attitudinal
structuring – a recognition that the attitudes and behaviour that arise in the negotiation process are
as important as the substantive issues (Lipsky, Seeber and Avgar, 2015).
Mediation employed in settings where lawyers are likely to be involved, such as commercial
disputes, is often referred to as ‘facilitated negotiation’ (Riskin, 1997: 17). This conveys a sense of a
third party stepping in to remedy a failure by parties and lawyers – as their agents – to agree a
solution. It is also a frame, albeit one that might puzzle participants in another type of dispute. A
mediator must therefore be adaptive in framing the mediation process. They may for example, in
neighbour disputes, frame mediation as an opportunity to hold a constructive conversation. This
reflects a common feature of conflict; a breakdown in communication.
The dominance of the facilitative model was challenged in 1994 by the transformative model (Bush
and Folger, 1994). This model views conflict as arising from a failure of social interaction between
the disputants and eschews conflict resolution as an objective. Consequently, mediation is an
opportunity for effective interaction to be restored. This involves the parties regaining recognition
(of the other) and empowerment (expression of the self). The mediator’s role is as a supporter to the
interaction, inviting rather than directing parties to the extent that they – and not the mediator – are
in control of the process. The transformative model has now been introduced in a number of
situations, most prominently in a workplace scheme for the US Postal Service (Bingham, 2012). It is
42
not widely practised in the UK but has recently replaced a facilitative practice in a hospital health
trust (private conversation with trainer).
Bush and Folger criticise the facilitative model as transactional, driven by an objective of settlement
or agreement. The target of their criticism is US practice in court-annexed cases which may indeed
be driven by such instrumental purposes. This leaves open the possibility that their assertion is a
situated critique: valid in a particular context but not universally applicable to the facilitative model.
Moreover, Bush and Folger’s alternative model is predicated on recognition and empowerment
being the sole requirement for the restoration of interaction. However, these have been challenged
as necessary but not sufficient conditions (Condlin, 2013; Gaynier, 2005) and failing to account for
the limits of human capacity to interact when in conflict. This has prompted a further development
– the Insight Model – that conceives of mediation as a learning model equipping parties with the
skills to manage conflict (Sargent, Picard and Jull, 2011).
Narrative mediation draws on narrative therapy and takes a post-modernist view of power
(Winslade, Monk and Cotter, 1998). Conflict arises in the form of a dominant narrative with
disputants potentially unaware of the colonising effect of such a narrative. The mediator – as
discourse analyst – is therefore tasked to alert the parties, disrupt the conflict stained narrative and
assist the parties to discover alternative narratives. In achieving this fresh narrative, mediation is
said to be ‘a means to achieve a higher moral self’ (Hansen, 2004: 306) and provide ‘the
development of a counter-story of dialogue, cooperation and agreement’ (Winslade and Monk, 2002:
11).
Bush and Folger propose that their emphasis on party self-determination and interparty
understanding means power is no longer an issue. This is in contrast, they contend, with both
facilitative and narrative mediation. In the former, mediators must re-balance disputant power to
achieve equitable outcomes; in the latter, mediators must exert power to disrupt and reshape
narratives (Bush and Folger, 2012).
Finally, evaluative mediation is a model where the mediator expresses an opinion on the merits of
the case to provide an added impetus towards settlement. This approach is controversial and
considered by some as falling outwith the boundaries of mediation (Kovach and Love, 1998).
Providing an opinion in a case relies upon possessing expertise in how it may be disposed of in a
formal procedure. It is thus a model of mediation that can be adopted, or lapsed into as critics might
argue, by professionals, for example lawyers or HR practitioners. An expectation for mediation to be
conducted under the evaluative approach may also arise amongst disputants (Seargeant, 2005).
43
Evaluative and facilitative models can be viewed as falling on a continuum with mediators adapting
their approach within the mediation (Riskin, 1997). Thus, mediation may commence in a facilitative
mode but move into a more evaluative form if parties become stuck and settlement is at risk.
The four models can also be classified in terms of a relational-transactional (settlement) continuum
(Kressel, 2013). The evaluative model with its settlement focus is clearly transactional, whilst the
transformative is relational. Positioning the facilitative model however, is potentially problematic. To
critics such as Bush and Folger, it is transactional, but when used in neighbour mediation it may be
understood as relational; practised in the workplace it might be either. Moreover, mediators are
reported to be unaware of their actual styles (Wall and Kressel, 2012). This leaves open the
possibility that the facilitative model is being practised unwittingly in a hybrid manner that does not
as – Picard suggests – fall readily into a recognised classification scheme (2004).
2.9.2 Integration
Given their differing explanations of conflict and power, it is perhaps unsurprising that proponents of
narrative and transformative mediation are purists, proclaiming an exclusiveness of practice for their
model. This does not permit – in their view – a model to be ‘ransacked for its techniques’ (Hansen,
2004: 307). Many mediators however, do not appear respectful of such demarcations. Even where
they identify with a particular model, they draw on a wide variety of strategies designed to meet the
needs of the mediation (Jameson, Sohan and Hodge, 2014).
There is a parallel in psychotherapeutic practice where an integrative approach is common; a level of
25-50% is reported amongst American clinicians. This would seem perfectly natural when empirical
studies reveal that only 10-15% of variance in therapeutic outcome is accounted for by technique.
Factors said to influence the choice of an eclectic approach are experience – learning the limitations
of an exclusive theoretical orientation – and a lack of a doctrinaire position in initial training
(Boswell, et al, 2010). We might expect therefore, that mediators will develop a more integrated
approach over time but that those originally trained in transformative mediation may be less
receptive to integration, at least at a conscious level.
How might integration operate in mediation? Integrated practice in psychotherapy suggests this
might be accomplished in one of four ways (Boswell et al., 2010). In ‘Technical Eclecticism’ the
practitioner selects the best single model for the case. However, given the unfolding interaction that
is mediation, it is difficult to confidently select a best model at the onset. ‘Theoretical Integration’ is
a synthesis of two or more models. An example is Mareschal’s bifocal approach; a synthesis of the
44
facilitative and transformative models in which mediators have twin goals, interests and
relationships (Mareschal, 2003).
‘Assimilative Integration’ is rooted in one model but includes techniques from others. This would
seem to be the most accessible approach for many mediators. Described as a ‘realistic way station to
a sophisticated integration’, it can however be criticised as a ‘waste station of people unwilling to
commit to a full evidence-based eclecticism’ (Norcross and Goldfried, 2005: 10). ‘Common Factors’ is
a synthesis across models based on core elements that are common. This approach is achieved ‘as a
heuristic that implicitly guides the efforts of experienced therapists’ (Norcross and Goldfried, 2005:
9).
Professional competence is said to require development of one's own theory of practice which
includes technical and interpersonal theory (Argyris and Schön, 1974). Developing a personal
integrative practice would seem therefore to be advantageous; a hallmark of the professional
mediator. However, there is a danger which arises in how mediators integrate. A distinction must be
drawn between eclecticism and syncretism; the latter an ‘uncritical and unsystematic combination’
of ‘pet techniques’ stemming from inadequate training (Cooper and McLeod, 2010: 10). Mediators
may commence practice after 40 hours of training (Kressel, 2013) and their theoretical basis is weak
(Macfarlane and Mayer, 2005); consequently their ability to consciously formulate an integrated
practice is limited. A syncretic approach is therefore a more likely outcome.
2.10 Implications for research
Empirical research into mediation style is problematic. Using surveys to investigate style enables a
wide collection of data. However, the use of mediator surveys is questionable, as self-reported
mediator style differs from observed style (Charkoudian, 2012). Direct observation of mediators
provides a resource intensive alternative, but studies based on observation are limited in number
and their results contradictory (Wall and Kressel, 2012). For instance, a literature review found
evidence that both supports and refutes the notion of style flexibility within and also between cases
(Wall and Kressel, 2012).
A possible explanation for this state of affairs is that scholars and practitioners have different points
of departure and they understand style differently. Scholars look to identify behaviours that can be
clustered and labelled as a particular style. This approach has resulted in a proliferation of
definitions – 25 according to one study (Wall and Kressel, 2012) – and creates difficulties in
comparing results across studies. Practitioners however, conceive of their practice in terms of their
formal models, e.g. facilitative or transformative (Kressel, 2013) but report interventions that are
45
wider than their espoused model (Charkoudian and Ritis, 2009). This is indicative of a degree of
integration; an extension of practice beyond a single model acquired in basic training. Following
Kressel’s work (Kressel, 2013) this is perhaps unsurprising, as we may expect that integration is
personal and, with experience increasingly less reliant on any one formal model. Thus, when studies
report high user satisfaction irrespective of mediator style (Wall and Kressel, 2012) we might
question whether the nuances of mediator style have been adequately captured.
What then is missing from the literature on mediator style that might point to fruitful research?
Firstly, there has been little consideration of the process by which mediators become eclectic.
Research rather takes mediator eclecticism as a point of departure for the investigation of
behaviour. Kressel does point to the role of reflection in professional development and has
developed this in his reflective case study method (Kressel, 1997) based on tapping the wisdom of
experts in defining effective interventions (in divorce mediation) as a means of building theory. It
lacks the converse however; the role that a better appreciation of theory might have, particularly on
the development of less experienced practitioners. Would, for instance, a richer grounding in
theories of social interaction, enable mediators to make better, more conscious choices in
integration?
In addition, the focus in the literature is on the individual mediator and their personal style. No light
is shed on the common practice of co-mediation (mediators acting in tandem) that is used, for
example, in universities. We may therefore ask how a pair of mediators decides on their
interventions if they are to form an effective working alliance. Further, mediators work collectively in
in-house schemes and these provide further frames that influence schema. However, this has not
yet been researched; we know little of the expectations of internal schemes for mediator flexibility,
and what steps do they take to promote this.
2.11 Research Questions
This chapter has developed a framework for viewing mediation as a social interaction before turning
more specifically to the practice of workplace mediation in the HE sector. From this it is possible to
articulate a number of questions that are germane to this practice and the challenges faced by the
university mediator. How do these mediators compile their personal schema? How are mediators
selected to co-mediate and how do they make this effective? How do mediators develop their skills
with such limited opportunities to practice? We turn now to the formulation of research questions
which can address these issues and provide a contribution to the professional development of the
less experienced mediator.
46
Theories of social interaction are significant in providing an explanation for conflict, the use of
power, conditions for a cooperative process and the personal schema that underpin a mediator’s
style. Synthesising such theory with practice is a path to professional growth (Lang and Taylor, 2000;
Argyris and Schon, 1974) that can be undertaken consciously and deliver an integrated eclectic
practice responsive to the complexities of mediation. However, if theory does not explicitly serve as
the foundation, integration may follow a non-conscious route drawing on personal schema and lead
not to eclecticism but syncretism (Cooper and McLeod, 2010), the haphazard assembly of
techniques noted above that serves neither mediator nor mediation well.
There has, however, been little research into the process by which mediators integrate their practice
and develop professionally. Techniques such as the reflective case study (Kressel, 1997) are valuable
means of generating theory from practice but have been used to capture the wisdom of experts. The
converse: how theory – a conscious framework for social interaction – might contribute to practice,
is unexplored. Moreover, research that is practice-relevant, that bridges the gap between ‘what
mediation researchers do and what mediation practitioners care about’ (Kressel, 2013: 711), needs
to address the needs and practice of the less experienced mediator. Attending to this subset of
practitioners – recently trained and endeavouring to enact mediation – opens up the possibility of
weaving together theory, research, practice and learning; a ‘four-way nexus’, a ‘new paradigm’ for
the study of conflict management (Ebner and Parlamis, 2017).
This study therefore aims to address this gap by examining the connection between social
interaction and the practice of less experienced mediators. Consequently, the research questions
address the process by which theory, practice and training interact to produce personal theories of
practice and are framed as:
1. How do mediators conceive of interaction?
2. What theory do mediators draw on to shape their practice?
3. How do mediators make decisions?
4. In what ways might an explicit understanding of Social Interaction Theory contribute to a
mediator developing a consciously integrated, flexible practice?
A second research theme arises from the challenges of co-mediation outlined in this Chapter.
Previous research on personal style has focused on the individual mediator and there has been no
previous investigations that extended to the common practice of co-mediation (mediators acting in
tandem). This leaves a gap in understanding how a pair of mediators allows for personal style and
still forms an effective working alliance. Further, workplace mediators often work collectively within
47
in-house schemes and these provide further frames that influence schema. However, we know little
of the expectations of internal schemes in relation to mediator flexibility, and what steps they take
to promote this. Consequently, the second set of research questions are formulated as:
1. How does co-mediation become effective given differing personal styles?
2. How do mediators coordinate their actions and cognitions?
The practice of co-mediation and the professional growth of mediators, how they integrate their
practice and formulate their personal style, are issues which touch a wide span of mediation activity.
Knowledge gained in research can therefore make a contribution beyond any one sector.
Nonetheless a focus is required, and it was decided to locate this research in workplace mediation in
the HE sector. This was justified on three grounds. Firstly, the sector is prominent in the practice of
workplace mediation and so research has the potential for high impact. Secondly, mediation services
in universities practice co-mediation but, with limited opportunities for experience face challenges in
mediator development, meaning research in this area would be of practical relevance. Finally, this is
an accessible sector with a desire to engage and learn (Poyntz, 2012); this lowered recruitment
hurdles and enhanced the prospects for a successful completion of the research.
Having identified two broad themes – social interaction and co-mediation – and formulated the
research questions, we now turn now to the design and implementation of the research. In the next
chapter we examine both methodology – the guiding philosophy for the research – and method,
how the research was conducted.
48
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Methods
Research must be established within a methodological framework to provide coherence to the
selection of methods and the evaluation of results. Selecting a methodology may default to the
paradigm established in the researcher’s field, but this approach conceals a choice that should be
made explicitly. There is no single incontestable means to determine methodology (Johnson,
Buehring, Cassell, and Symon, 2006) and consequently the researcher must argue a case for their
philosophical preference. The justification for such a preference should be deductive in that theory
and practice are linked, and also inductive, emanating from the researcher’s conception of their role.
Two aspects of philosophy are of particular importance: ontology – ‘the nature of the social world
and what can be known about it’ – and epistemology – ‘the nature of knowledge and how it can be
acquired’ (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003: 1). Ontology and epistemology represent beliefs or assertions
respectively as to the nature of reality and the means of producing knowledge, and are to a degree
related: ‘an objectivist epistemology is necessarily dependent on realist ontological assumptions… a
subjectivist epistemology can be combined with either subjectivist or realist assumptions about
reality’ (Johnson et al., 2006: 136).
Ontological positions are commonly conceived as standing on a continuum from realism – where
there is one reality that can be determined objectively – through to relativism – where there are
multiple, subjectively determined realities (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010). Realism differs from
relativism in the view taken of the involvement of human agency:
‘A realist view assumes that social reality has an independent existence prior to human
cognition, whereas a subjectivist ontology assumes that what we take to be reality is an
output of human cognitive processes’ (Johnson et al., 2006: 136).
The challenge for the researcher is to find a way to justify their position in regard to their research
which is consistent with their actions and interactions, and which yields knowledge that can be
trusted. In selecting an ontological stance however, the researcher must address a dilemma: realism
requires an objectivity which conflicts with the subjective nature of the researcher’s role in the
analysis of data, and relativism raises questions as to the transferability of knowledge:
‘Adopting a realist position ignores the way the researcher constructs interpretations of the
findings and assumes that what is reported is a true and faithful interpretation of a knowable
and independent reality. Relativism leads to the conclusion that nothing can ever be known
49
for definite, that there are multiple realities, none having precedence over the other in terms
of claims to represent the truth about social phenomena’ (Andrews, 2012: 42)
The difficulties of taking an ontological stance may draw the researcher to a compromise solution,
seeking a middle ground that eschews the extremes of pure realism or extreme relativism. This
research however rejects this approach in favour of an intersubjectivist ontology: not a middle
ground between two poles but a third ‘knowledge problematic’ that shares the ontological space
with objectivism (realism) and subjectivism (relativism) (Cunliffe, 2010). An intersubjective ontology
is relational (Keevers and Treleaven, 2011), where ‘people constantly shape situations, meanings and
lives through conversations, actions and interpretations around what they and others are doing’
(Cunliffe and Scaratti, 2017: 31). This view, unlike realism, recognises human agency, but unlike
relativism sees reality as defined in the interaction of individuals rather than by individual cognition.
It thus represents ‘a way of thinking about who we are in the world that is based on the belief that
we are not separate individuals (entities) but we are always in relation with others’ (Cunliffe, 2016:
742).
Epistemology may be categorised as either a positivist approach where ‘the world is independent of
and unaffected by the researcher’, or an interpretivist approach in which ‘the researcher and the
social world impact on each other’ (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003: 16). Looking specifically at the field of
this research, we find that the process of mediation is a complex social interaction in which parties
construct meaning (Mareschal, 2005) and where human action is a response to such meaning
making (Picard and Jull, 2011). Multiple interpretations arise in mediation and accounts of mediator
actions reflect the differing perspectives of the parties to the interaction (Moore, 2014). Studying
mediation therefore requires an epistemology that can accommodate the open, subjective nature of
the process. Accordingly, this research draws on an interpretivist perspective consistent with the
theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism detailed in the literature review. This approach has
been widely deployed in mediation (Relis, 2005; Dignan et al., 2007; Picard and Siltanen, 2013;
Garcia, 2010).
An interpretivist approach falls under the broader canopy of social constructionism (Lincoln and
Lynham, 2011; Denzin, 2001; Gergen, 1985): a movement within constructionism where the ‘major
focus is on the social processes giving rise to knowledge’ (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 4). It shares with
post-modernism the perspective that ‘knowledge is relative and not universal and subjectively
determined not objectively given’ (Ransome, 2010: 187). However, it should be seen as distinctive
from postmodernism in two aspects: firstly in viewing humans as transcendental agents (Ransome,
2010), free to act and choose rather than constrained and determined by structure; and secondly, in
50
deriving meaning from language rather than language becoming the object of discursive analysis
(Kvale, 2007a). Social constructionism is based on the ‘notion that our social realities and sense of
self are created between us in our everyday interactions and conversations’ (Cunliffe, 2004: 410).
Reflexivity requires the researcher to examine their role in the research process and to develop ‘a
habit of awareness and critical thinking regarding their engagement with... research and its
participants’ (King, 2004: 18). Reflexive practice can usefully be applied (inductively) to the process
of selecting a methodology so as to ensure coherence in how the researcher will subsequently act.
For instance, a question may be posed of the researcher-interviewer: do they see themselves on a
‘search-and-discovery mission… maximizing the flow of valid and reliable information that resides
inside the informant's mind’ – a critical realist approach; or in a ‘social encounter in which knowledge
is jointly constructed’, a social constructionist approach that Järvensivu and Törnroos label as
moderate or weak constructionism (2010: 102). The experience of this researcher – as a mediation
practitioner – suggests the latter approach is a better personal fit.
Social constructionism is a ‘relationally responsive’ subset of constructionism (Cunliffe, 2010: 658)
that corresponds to an intersubjective approach to ontology; it allows for an objective reality, but
how we understand that reality is socially constructed (Andrews, 2012). A particularity of an
intersubjectivist approach is that ontology and epistemology are said to be entwined (Cunliffe and
Scaratti, 2017: 33); both the nature of reality and the generation of knowledge are relational. For
example, interviews are viewed as ‘conversations in which participants jointly reflect on issues and
discuss insights’ (Cunliffe, 2010: 659). Further, the epistemological frame of moderate
constructionism aligns with an intersubjectivist perspective. Knowledge is created by the
interactions of individuals and not discovered by the mind (Andrews, 2012): ‘within the
constructionist dialogues we find that it is not the individual mind in which knowledge, reason,
emotion and morality reside, but in relationships’ (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 5). Research
participants construct their realities through interaction with the researcher (McLachlan and Garcia,
2015). Interviews within a constructionist epistemology prioritise:
‘the interactional element of the interview through an intersubjective and reflexive exchange
with ‘participants’… achieved, however, through a co-constructed, collaborative and
meaning-making process between interviewer and interviewee’ (McLachlan and Garcia,
2015: 199)
Accordingly, this research draws on a methodology that is interpretive, intersubjective and
moderately constructionist. This allows the study of interaction – in the field of workplace mediation
51
– to be addressed in a relational approach, opening up the possibility to view practice in the light of
second generation models of mediation that ground their approaches in a social constructionism
(Douglas, 2008). Having examined the meta-theory which frames the use of research methods, we
turn now to the quality of knowledge produced under this methodology.
3.1 Evaluation
The criteria for evaluating research need to be consistent with the chosen epistemology and
articulated at the design stage (Leitch, Hill and Harrison, 2009; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). There is
agreement in the literature that conventional positivist criteria of validity, reliability and
generalisability cannot be directly applied when working with a constructivist methodology (Lincoln
and Lynham, 2011; Johnson et al., 2006). However, there is no consensus on what criteria might
replace them (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010; Lincoln and Lynham, 2011).
Social constructionism makes claims regarding knowledge that are profoundly different from
positivist claims of objective truth with universal application. It is an epistemology which has a
‘pragmatic conception of knowledge… [Where] issues of truth and objectivity are replaced by
concerns with what the research brings forth’ (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 7). Positivists seek to
answer the question, ‘Is this research valid?’ However, the social constructionist seeks to address a
different question: ‘What is this research valid for?’ (Aguinaldo, 2004: 1). Knowledge which is
constructed – rather than generated – in dialogic interaction (within interviews) is situated and
contextual (Mason, 2002: 62). Recognising knowledge as situated means that studies should not:
‘… be evaluated in terms of the generalizability of the resulting knowledge (i.e. the
universality of the theory) but rather in terms of whether the results contribute to contextual
insights’ (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010: 104)
Analytical generalisation is a term used in moderate constructionism to conceptualise the
transferability of knowledge (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010); it requires a ‘reasoned judgement
about the extent to which the findings from one study can be used as a guide to what might occur in
another situation’ (Kvale, 2007b: 12). It involves both the researcher and the reader in what can be
pictured as a relay: the researcher gathering, interpreting and analysing the data in the first leg
before passing on the baton to the reader for the next leg. The researcher must justify truth claims
by demonstrating they are supported by the data and then argue the case for transfer. The reader is
invited to judge what is offered and recognise the knowledge as socially robust, of value in the new
community: ‘the subject community that is a part of the context adopts and accepts the transferred
theories’ (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010: 104).
52
Analytical generalisation is predicated on ‘rich specific descriptions’, and ‘high-quality descriptions of
the interview process and products’ (Kvale, 2007b: 12). Accordingly, this chapter offers a reflexive
account of data gathering, analysis and interpretation. In addition – in the subsequent chapters
containing empirical data (Chapters 4-7) – extensive use is made of interviewee quotes. This enables
a multiplicity of voices to represent the data rather than the ‘single voice of the omniscient
researcher’ (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 14), albeit the researcher functions as the coordinator of
such voices and the ‘arbiter of inclusion, emphasis and integration’ (2007: 15).
The core challenge in describing evaluation is to demonstrate that the results of an intersubjective,
moderate constructionist approach can be considered trustworthy. Examining the literature, two
themes emerge in response to this challenge: transparency (‘what needs to be demonstrated’); and
communication (the ‘how’). These need to be applied in each stage of the research – design, data
collection, analysis and interpretation (Leitch, et al, 2009).
Transparency requires the researcher to be open regarding the process of research and to articulate
how the research practices adopted ‘transform observations into data, results, findings and insights’
(Leitch et al., 2009: 73). Such openness requires reflexivity of the researcher, a willingness to be
critical of their role that should be a feature of social constructionism (Gergen and Gergen, 2007:
13). This can clarify, for the reader, how issues such as bias have been addressed or discomfiting
data have been recognised. It should also provide theoretical candour; evidence of the conceptual
development underpinning conclusions (Leitch, et al, 2009). Reflexivity is important as validity – in
social constructionism – depends on the ‘qualities inherent in the researcher and the research
process’ (Leitch, et al, 2009: 73). This chapter therefore provides a reflexive account of both
researcher and methods that explains how the research design in this study was enacted in practice.
Such reflexivity provides the reader insight ‘into a consciousness of construction’ (Gergen and
Gergen, 2007: 14) and the ‘individual values, epistemic assumptions and methodological frameworks
[that underpin] the validity argument’ (De Luca, 2011: 311).
Communication is a development process with a selected audience: this thesis ‘an interpretive
activity addressed to a community of interlocutors’ (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 15). Establishing
validity should involve an interaction with ‘study participants, the scientific community, and the
general public’ (Järvensivu and Törnroos, 2010: 103). Developing rigour in research practice involves
communication between the researcher and the academic community, most particularly within
supervision (Frels and Onwuegbuzie, 2012). Communication should establish with these
communities that what is offered constitutes ‘socially robust knowledge’ (Shotter, 2009: 283):
knowledge that is ‘relevant and accepted by actors in the context of its application…knowledge [that]
53
is credible, salient and produced in a legitimate way’ (Seijger et al., 2016: 393). Knowledge that is
grounded in the empirical data produced in university workplace mediation and also has resonance
in the wider context of mediator development. Communication should produce ‘compelling,
powerful, and convincing evidence for the intended audience’ (Leitch, et al, 2009: 74).
Communicative validation as described by Kvale (2007b), occurs in three contexts which have been
adapted (Table 3) to show how it has been applied to this study. Self-understanding occurs within
the interview as participants interact intersubjectively with the researcher and bring meaning to
their practice. However, in the present study there was also the opportunity for the researcher to
gain self-understanding by reflecting on what was emerging from data analysis in the context of his
own mediation practice.
The practitioner (mediation) community is a second context for communication. Here, the emphasis
is on critical commonsense: does what is represented as knowledge make sense? Does it offer
something helpful to practice? The fora for this communication are mediator gatherings such as
practice meetings and workshops. As described below and experienced by the researcher in
presenting his work to practitioners, these fora are occasions where situated knowledge (this study)
meets situated comprehension (the practitioners’ concept of mediation). Situated comprehension
arises from the particularities of mediation practice in any given sector and can act as a filter for the
evaluation of situated knowledge. We might expect, consequently, the findings of this study to
resonate more readily where practice is perceived as relational – for example in a workshop
undertaken with Acas trained workplace mediators – rather than settlement focused, e.g. the Judge-
Mediators of the Employment Tribunal Service.
Finally, theoretical understanding is validated within the research (academic) community. Initially by
the supervisors of this research, but then progressively by the examiners of this thesis and the wider
community. Socially robust knowledge is, however, not static; it is open-ended with a strongly
empirical dimension (Shotter, 2009), offered for consideration, testing and improvement in each of
these three contexts.
54
Table 3 Communicative Validation (adapted from Kvale, 2007b: 9)
Context of Interpretation Community of Validation
Form of Validation
Forum
Self-understanding Interviewees (1) Researcher (2)
Member validation
(1) Within interview (2) In reflexive practice
Critical Commonsense Understanding
The mediation community
Audience validation
Practice meetings, workshops, and conferences
Theoretical Understanding
The academic community
Peer validation
Supervisors, examiners, and wider dissemination
Having introduced the parameters by which the research should be evaluated we turn to the means
by which the reader may do so: the reflexive description of the researcher, methods and the quality
of data, analysis and interpretation.
3.2 The Researcher
The reader of this research is entitled to query what frames the researcher brings to their work. This
is particularly the case where, as here, the researcher is a practitioner of mediation and shaped by
their own experience of practice and where the research methodology is non-realist. Accordingly,
this section provides some background details for the researcher and the context and conduct of the
research.
The researcher qualified as a commercial mediator in 2006, having successfully undertaken a
standard 40-hour programme of instruction in facilitative mediation and becoming an accredited
mediator. Later that year, I undertook a further 40 hours of instruction in mediation that qualified
me as a community mediator. These courses were substantially identical, despite the significantly
different context in which mediation was to be practised. The main difference, it seemed at that
time, was in the role plays; a core feature in the embedding and assessment of mediation skills.
These respectively featured commercial disputes with sole mediators and neighbour disputes with
co-mediators. I subsequently completed a six-hour conversion workshop to qualify as a workplace
mediator; an approach premised on applying a generic mediation skill set to a different context. I
have since practised in commercial, community, intergenerational, workplace and special education
needs cases and have now completed over 200 cases. This, by some measures, qualifies me as an
experienced mediator (Goldberg, 2005b; Raines, Pokhrel and Poitras, 2013).
After obtaining accreditation, I followed a path of gaining experience by practicing mediation and
undertaking sessions of continuous professional development (CPD); a route required by many of
the professional bodies representing the field of mediation, including the Civil Mediation Council.
55
However, even whilst growing in competence, I found the adage of ‘just follow the process’– the
application of mediation skills within a structure – provided an inadequate understanding of the
dynamics of a negotiation process. I concluded therefore, that I needed to explore the theoretical
underpinnings of mediation in greater depth. Accordingly, I entered the Masters degree in Conflict
Resolution and Mediation at Strathclyde University in the first cohort in 2010, graduating in 2012
with a dissertation that examined the reasons for the popularity of workplace mediation in British
universities.
As I now practice across a number of fields, I have reflected on my responses to differing cases and
formulated a range of questions that centre on the mediator, their role and their decision making.
Do I have a style as a mediator which is flexible, allowing for the generalities of context but
addressing the specifics of any particular interaction? Do I work forward from a repertoire that, with
some adaptation to the parties, works for all the special education cases I undertake, or do I work
backwards from a heedful attention to the interaction? What is it that brings together the
techniques and skills I have acquired in a coherent and integrated fashion? How do my presence and
actions influence the interaction of the parties? Of the myriad choices I need to make during the
course of any mediation, why do I do what I do when I do it? The genesis of this self-funded
research, the focus on the mediator, lies in a personal curiosity in addressing these questions.
Beyond the selection of a research area, I have continued to practice as a mediator and this has
influenced the study, particularly in the writing of this thesis. The methodology of this research is co-
constructive, and this most obviously applies to the interaction between participants and researcher
in the production of data. However, co-construction applies beyond this phase to include the
researcher interacting with the data, with the literature and with his own experience to produce a
synthesis which is coherent and resonant with the reader and the mediation community. This
synthesis has worked in two directions: the data suggesting connections in practice and established
theory or conversely practice/theory providing a frame for interrogating the data.
An example of the former can be seen in the production of Table 12, a synthesis of epistemic
orientation in the practice of mediation. This concept emerged from the researcher’s engagement
with the data and the table seemed a coherent way of interpreting what had been found. However,
what crystallised matters and brought clarity to the writing was an SEN mediation case undertaken
at that time. In response to what was emerging from the data I asked myself in what way was my
conduct of that mediation co-constructive and how had I positioned myself in the interaction? At
that stage it became clear that what I was synthesising in theory had a resonance in, at least, my
own practice.
56
I have also found the various communities of practice I participate in particularly useful in checking
resonance in the wider community. Here, in conversation with fellow mediators, I have been able to
test emerging concepts and to see if I can clearly explain what I have found; a process that has
sharpened both my thinking and my writing. Equally, listening to another mediator describing their
methods has provided the opportunity for reflexivity; why do I do practice in a different way from a
fellow practitioner?
The reverse direction – practice influencing analysis and writing – is best illustrated by two
experiences that occurred during the course of the research. A 2015 conference in Edinburgh
featured a US academic whose work is cited in this study. When mediators gather in conferences
and practice meetings there is an opportunity to share accounts of practice. These, it is hoped,
enable recognition of best practice, and learning and development to occur. However, where
accounts are provided in different fields, what I have witnessed is not recognition but mutual
incomprehension often expressed as ‘that’s not mediation’. In one session Kenneth Kressel, a US
academic and practitioner, showed a video of family mediation conducted in the context of the US
legal system and invited reflective comments from his audience. This enactment of mediation was
highly directive with the mediator frequently interrupting the parties and tightly controlling the
agenda. Said to be highly effective in its US context, this approach was robustly contested by the
workplace and community mediators in the audience although, as one family mediator confided, it is
recognised as completely normal in their field. The reader will find this concept of the highly
contextual nature of mediation examined further in Chapter 7.
Secondly, in January 2016, I was asked to judge a national mediation competition where competitors
were drawn from the ranks of university law schools. Being asked to switch from a non-judgemental
facilitator, as a mediator, to grading the effectiveness of what I saw played out in front of me in role
play, was a disconcerting experience. Is there one right way of mediating or does my view represent
simply one alternative? When a fellow judge opined that a competitor should have been more in
control, more directive, while conversely I commended them for being calm and letting the parties
interact, did that reveal more about me and my conception of mediation than any absolute
standard?
One particular aspect of the competition seemed to trip up many of the competitors. This was a
requirement to include in the observed role play at least one joint and one private session
subsequent to the initial joint meeting. Mediators therefore had to develop a strategy for how to
utilise these sessions in a manner that responded to the way the cases were unfurling before them.
Most chose to break into a series of private meetings with the mediators shuttling between parties
57
hoping to narrow the differences between the parties before a final wrap up joint session to
complete an agreement. This is an approach that would be recognised by many commercial
mediators who conceive that mediating only starts once the initial session is dispensed with and the
work of negotiating can commence in private sessions.
This emphasis on private sessions fitted well where the issues of the conflict were transactional in
nature, e.g. how much money needs to be paid to settle a claim. A difficulty arises – as it did with
these role plays – where the conflict is relational, e.g. where explanations, apologies, trust, and
better communication are part of a solution. If relational aspects are to be addressed, mediators
may well have to use private meetings not as interlinked negotiating rooms but as preparation for a
subsequent interaction in a joint meeting. These students had a level of interpersonal skills and a 5-
step process they had recently learned and a few hours practice. They could demonstrate the skills,
but they lacked a clear strategy or framework as to how to flex the process to the cases before them.
The reader will find this theme of the less experienced mediator and their concept of interaction is a
recurrent thread throughout this thesis.
I embarked on this research with a desire to understand and develop my own practice, and the
process of co-construction – the interaction of theory, data and practice – involved in conducting the
study has certainly made a contribution to this goal. Further, I surmised that others in the field of
mediation might have similar questions or ambitions that would mean the research had value to the
wider mediation community. What I have observed during the course of this research in practice
meetings, conferences and other settings has reinforced that view.
3.3 Methods
Selecting a methodology, as described above, does not predetermine the methods that will be
utilised, as epistemology and method are not synonymous: epistemology does not ‘dictate what
specific data collection and data analytical methods researchers must use’ (Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 15). Methods should be chosen based on their appropriateness in addressing
the research questions (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003: 15) whilst methodology provides the frame for how
these methods are deployed in ways which are coherent and consistent. This section describes the
methods used in this research, the reasons for their selection and their adaptation in response to
the constraints and opportunities of fieldwork, analysis and interpretation.
As outlined later in this section, mixed methods – the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods
(Meth and McClymont, 2009) – have been used in this research in the harnessing of survey
questions alongside interviews. This is a popular combination in mediation research (Borton and
58
Paul, 2017; Poitras et al., 2015; Nelson, et al, 2010; Bingham, 2012; Latreille and Saundry, 2015).
Mixed methods seek to gather, analyse and interpret data in ways which are complementary, but sit
within the overarching methodology and represent a pragmatic approach to selecting methods
which is characteristic of a constructionist epistemology (Gergen and Gergen, 2007). The matching
of methods in a mixed approach can take many forms: quantitative and qualitative may be of equal
or disproportionate weight and can take place in sequence or in parallel. In this study, it was
appropriate – in addressing the research questions – to use a concurrent embedded strategy
(Creswell, 2009) where the quantitative element (questionnaire) was secondary, a complement to
the qualitative element (interview) in both data gathering and subsequent analysis.
3.4 Data Gathering
The core of the approach to data gathering was the interviews conducted with university workplace
mediators. These were based on a topic guide derived from the research questions (Appendix 1)
supplemented by a questionnaire employed in previous research into mediator decision making
(Appendix 2). The topic guide represents the cascading of the research questions into more specific
components that frame the conversation with an interviewee. The guide is a means to steer a
discussion between researcher and participant but is not an exact prescription of what is covered
(Ritchie and Lewis, 2003: 115). Mixing methods by deploying a questionnaire as an initial step
alongside a topic guide had two purposes. Firstly, using questions that had proved engaging to
mediators in the earlier research was seen as a means of building rapport and centring subsequent
discussion in areas of research interest. Secondly, when subsequently analysing data it opened up
the possibility for comparison with the earlier research.
Fieldwork was conducted in four phases as shown in Figure 2. Initially, two pilot interviews were
conducted with experienced mediators who had no connection with any university to test and refine
the interview method and content. Subsequently, in Phase One, the researcher travelled to four
institutions to make a presentation (Appendix 4) that introduced the field of research and to issue an
invitation for individuals to participate in Phase Two. Finally, at the conclusion of each individual
interview, mediators willing to contribute further were invited to undertake a reflective exercise
(Phase Three) connected to a future case (Appendix 3).
59
Figure 2 Data Generation and Collection
Recruitment was conceived as a cascade process: contacting first the university to request access to
their pool of mediators, offering a group presentation (Phase One), and a further invitation to
individual mediators to participate in interviews (Phase Two). Initial contact was made with the 18
universities that had participated in the earlier 2012 research with an invitation to participate in a
study of mediator decision making. However, this elicited a limited response with just four
universities responding positively. Accordingly, personal networking was utilised to recruit a further
two institutions. One was recruited via an academic with interests in mediation who was able to
provide an introduction to the mediation service at their university. The other university was
recruited through a contact made at the Higher Education Mediation Forum.
3.4.1 Pilot Interviews
The pilot interviews were conducted with mediators who each had more than 20 years’ experience
and were personally known to the researcher. One had a particular connection with co-mediation as
a coordinator of a community mediation service in addition to experience as a commercial mediator.
The other, as a transformative mediator and trainer, was considered likely to have some knowledge
of the theory of social interaction that underpins the practice of the transformative model. The
interviews therefore represented two opportunities: to check the effectiveness of the interview
method and to produce data that could be contrasted with that collected in the main study.
Structure was provided to each interview by utilising a questionnaire (Appendix 2) originally used in
research with Israeli mediators and which is described in more detail in Chapter 6. Here a number of
statements were made that cover the purpose, goals and success factors in mediation, and
participants invited to grade their response from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This approach
was found to work well in that the questions engaged the interviewees and – critically for the
epistemology of the research – generated a conversation with the researcher. This effectively turned
Pilot Interviews
Group Work (1)
Individual Interviews (2)
Individual Reflective
Exercise (3)
60
a fill-in the numbers survey into a semi-structured interview, with the interviewees willing to provide
some explanation or commentary on their scoring and the researcher able to probe responses.
Further, establishing this level of interaction between interviewee and the researcher subsequently
proved useful when moving into the semi-structured section (Appendix 1). However, what became
apparent was that conversation flowed when topics such as neutrality, power and conflict, issues
that might arise in practice meetings were addressed, but slowed when meta-theory,
intersubjectivity or reflexivity were raised. Topics that may be of interest to the academic clearly did
not necessarily resonate with the practitioner and their concerns for useful theory.
Interviews were conducted over Skype, recorded using Callnote and uploaded into NVivo for
transcription and analysis. This was found to be effective and confirmed that interviews could be
successfully conducted on-line, enabling researcher and interviewee to agree a suitable time free of
the constraints of scheduling visits to each institution. This additionally opened up the possibility of
offering participants in Phase Three a reflective interview rather than the completion of a reflective
journal.
It was therefore concluded that the interview method was likely to be effective in Phase Two,
generating data that could address the research questions and be uploaded and analysed within
standard software. However, the experience of the pilot interviews did flag a potential difficulty: if
conversation with experienced mediators flagged when moving into unfamiliar territory such as the
theorising of interaction, how would less experienced mediators respond?
3.4.2 Phase One Group Workshops
Mediators in universities gather together periodically for training and development, and it was
conceived that this might be a suitable forum in each university for the group work phase of the
research. The approach was for the researcher offer a presentation as a contribution to CPD whilst
noting down the reactions of the group and incorporating this into the research. Further, having
engaged the assembled mediators in the field of research it was expected that a number of them
would then be willing to participate in the succeeding phases.
Conceptually, meeting with these practice groups provided the opportunity for the researcher to
build a bridge between the concrete, pragmatic concerns of the practitioner (Kressel, 1997) and
theories of social interaction. A presentation (Appendix 4) was therefore prepared, trialled in a
workshop for Acas mediators, adapted and then delivered to each of the four institutions willing to
accommodate the researcher. A further two universities, U5 and U6, were unable to participate in a
group workshop.
61
The first observation to make of these groups is the conflict between research and practice. When
mediators gathered there was a tendency for tales of mediations to be told. These focused on vivid
moments in mediation where threats or obstacles were overcome. Alternatively, major triumphs
were recalled where agreement is reached against the odds. Mediators appeared able to clearly
recall the actions or interventions taken but when asked to explain why they took a particular course
of action, frequently resorted to explanations of it being the right thing to do; an intuitive
unexamined process.
The dilemma for the researcher is to encourage participation but to hold that interaction within a
framework that relates to theory and encourages reflection. Data need to be acquired but should fall
broadly within the ambit of the research questions that are being posed. In University 1, there was a
great deal of interaction but unfortunately no particular engagement with theory or the research
and subsequently no recruits for Phase Two. Accordingly, the workshop material was modified to be
less abstract and the researcher kept a tighter control on the group interaction. This achieved a
better balance with feedback at the end of the next workshop citing the opportunity to ‘think
behind’ (U2) the theory of mediation or as one participant subsequently articulated:
‘It was a really useful opportunity for us all to sit-down and ‘think’, rather than talk too much
(which we mediators do love!)’ (U3)
A second observation is that even with a more focused approach there were limits to what could be
achieved within the ambit of a 60-minute group session. It took time to understand the dynamics of
the group and build rapport. Echoing the experience of the pilot interviews, the researcher needed
to locate a starting point for the mediator in their ability to engage with theory. It was found
possible to introduce the research and topics such as personal style in the workshops, but not to
cover the concept of social interaction in any depth. It was further possible to obtain data which
illuminates how the practice group at each university operates works but not to establish a base-line
for theoretical knowledge. Clearly the bridge building, between theory and practice, would need to
fall to the individual interviews in Phase Two.
A third observation is that mediator groups in one university met infrequently (U5) and another had
already scheduled the content of their next practice meeting (U6); there was not necessarily a fit
with the timescale of the researcher. Fortunately, in both cases these institutions were willing to
facilitate the recruitment of mediators into Phase Two.
The outcome of Phase One was therefore twofold: it provided data for the group interaction in four
cases which is analysed in chapter 7 and paved the way for the recruitment of 18 mediators for
62
Phase Two, as shown in Table 4. As the initial design had targeted the involvement of two or three
institutions and the recruitment of three to four mediators at each university, this was considered a
sufficient number of recruits to proceed to Phase Two.
Table 4 Participant Recruitment
University Phase One Participants
Phase Two Recruits
Notes
U1 6 0
U2 9 5
U3 5 1
U4 4 3 Two of three Phase Two recruits not present at Phase One workshop
U5 n/a 3 Difficulties in arranging group meeting and agreed to go directly to Phase Two
U6 n/a 6 Did not wish to accommodate 90 minute workshop into regular practice meeting but agreed 5 minute briefing to
enable recruitment for Phase Two
The universities have been coded in the order in which the group workshops took place. Two of
these institutions (U2 and U5) were originally polytechnics that achieved university status under the
1992 Further and Higher Education Act, whilst the remaining four are pre-1992 universities. Two
universities have student enrolments of over 30,000 (U3 and U5), whilst the other four have
enrolments that lie between 12 and 18,000.
3.4.3 Phase Two Individual Interviews
An interpretivist approach emphasises qualitative methods, as these are viewed as ’more faithful to
the social world’ than quantitative methods (Gergen and Gergen, 2007: 473). The most common
qualitative method is the interview (King, 2004a); a social interaction with the researcher engaging
in a relationship with the interviewee that leads to an understanding of their life-world (King,
2004a). The present research involved the use of semi-structured interviews, as this allowed
participants scope to construct their accounts but to do so in the context of the research questions.
As such it formed a middle ground between an unstructured approach that might have produced
data which bore no relation to the questions, and a structured approach that risked missing
important aspects that the researcher might have overlooked.
Structure was provided in two forms: an interview guide that focused on topics rather than a defined
schedule of questions (King, 2004a), with topics drawn from the literature review. This was paired
with a questionnaire, per the pilot interviews, where participants were invited to respond
63
numerically to a set of statements but additionally invited to add a commentary or offer an
explanation for their choice.
Interviews were scheduled to run for 60 minutes but often ran, with permission, longer (to 75
minutes). These were conducted remotely over Skype by video link, although only the audio was
recorded using Call Note software. This method was not entirely trouble free as some institutions
did not support Skype and interviewees elected to link from their home location, bringing bandwidth
considerations into play. On two occasions such bandwidth problems caused the interview to be
interrupted although it was possible to re-establish the link and continue on a voice only basis.
Key skills for the interviewer are the ability to build rapport and enable an interviewee to reflect and
articulate their thoughts; skills which are coincidentally required of a mediator (Marshall and
Hurworth, 2009). However, beyond the deployment of skills, a researcher needs to account for the
stance they take. As a participant in an interaction, the researcher will inevitably condition the
interviewee’s responses (Dick, 2004), requiring the former to engage in reflexivity consistent with
the chosen methodology, i.e. as a co-constructionist and not as an objective observer.
What distinguishes a co-constructionist approach is an observation articulated by Back, that
‘…interviews are performative interventions that create, as well as reflect, the ‘real’ world’ (cited in
Baker and Edwards, 2012: 6). The researcher enables the interviewee to create an understanding of
their world; in this study by examining their practice from an interactional perspective. The
researcher recognises the interviewee as the expert in their world whilst offering, for consideration,
theoretical concepts that are potentially unfamiliar to less experienced mediators. The researcher
facilitates the creation but does not direct it; gathers data, responds to data and formulates further
questions that enable the interviewee to build a richer picture. What is described here echoes how a
co-constructive practitioner enacts mediation; a point which will become clearer in the discussion of
the study’s results in Chapter 8.
3.4.4 Phase Three Reflective Interviews
The third phase of the research was conceived as a reflective exercise focused on a selected future
case and specific topics. This phase built on themes emerging from an initial analysis of the data and
captured in a template for reflection provided to participants (Appendix 5); an example of
communication between researcher and participant. This was envisaged to take place over a period
of nine months to allow participants, who practice infrequently, to undertake a mediation.
Participants were given a choice of completing a reflective journal, but in practice preferred to make
64
their contribution by recorded on-line interview as utilised in Phase Two; a method more consonant
with co-construction even if somewhat more demanding in transcription.
Incorporating this phase in the research had two aims. Firstly, to allow the possibility for some
measure of longitudinal study where participants were able and willing to reflect on multiple cases;
a serial engagement between theory and practice that could lead to richer insights. Secondly, to
address a potential problem with the collection of data: in Phase Two, interviewees were providing
an account of practice based on a recall of prior cases, prompted by the questions introduced in the
interview. This was felt likely to lead to a more generalised reflection and raise the potential for a
gap to emerge between what is espoused and what is practised; a tendency to ‘”mis-remember”
events as a result of retelling them’ (Hoffman and Wolman, 2003: 764).
One means of addressing this gap is to place the researcher as a direct observer of the mediator in
action. There is, however, reluctance from parties to permit videoing of private confidential
mediation sessions (Bollen and Euwema, 2013). As an alternative, the research considered a method
pioneered by Kressel and known as the Reflective Observer (RO), an in-depth reflective case
conference approach to identifying best practice in mediation (Moore, 2014). The observer is
present in the mediation, although not as a co-mediator, taking notes that concentrate on mediator
behaviour. These notes are subsequently used in a facilitated dialogue with the mediator(s) that
resembles a semi-structured interview. However, this raised a number of practical considerations
when negotiating with universities during the recruitment process. Foremost amongst these was
that approvals would still be required from each university and the parties to mediation in addition
to the two co-mediators, risking agreement to participate in the research. Further, the researcher
would be required to travel, observing the mediation before conducting the reflective exercise with
mediators who have gone through the rigours of a day’s mediation.
‘… at the end of the day sometimes it can just be a massive relief that the day's over…It's
hard to then think back and think about how it went well really, what went well, what did we
miss out completely, what didn't we bring up that we should've done’ (Anna)
Consequently, it was decided to conduct the phase without observing the mediations, but by remote
interview with the mediators subsequently at a time that was suitable for the interviewee(s).
3.5 Ethics
Two ethical issues were identified in the methods utilised in this research: confidentiality and
psychological health. Whilst confidentiality is a general concern in research, it is an aspect with a
particular resonance in mediation, as the process is itself private and confidential. Fortunately, as an
65
integral part of mediation, confidentiality as a provision is addressed explicitly and mediators were
alert to describing practice in ways which did not identify the parties. Explicit permission was
obtained in consent forms for the use of quotations in a manner that would not be attributed to any
one individual or case. Consequently, pseudonyms have been used to label interviewees’ quotes
throughout this thesis and only aggregated data is provided in this chapter to describe the
background of participants. The process of obtaining consents was further simplified when the
pragmatic decision was made to preclude direct observations of mediation, thus removing the need
to seek agreement from the parties.
The second issue concerned the possible impact on psychological health when mediators undertake
reflection directly with the researcher rather than in keeping a reflective journal. It was identified
that such reflection would need to be conducted with sensitivity as it involved a relationship of trust
and openness. As case review is a regular feature of mediator practice it was not envisaged that this
aspect was likely to cause concern; a view confirmed by the experience of the Phase Three
interviews.
3.6 Analysis
Turning 22 hours of interviews into a well-argued thesis is a process illustrated by Figure 3. It
required organising the data in such a way that the researcher could be sensitive to the voice of the
interviewee but seek to answer the research questions set out in Chapter 2. A structure was
therefore required that was open enough to allow for the emergence of insights that might confirm
or contradict the researcher’s pre-conceptions, but focused enough that a coherent analysis of social
interaction could be constructed.
Data were generated by the researcher transcribing the recorded interviews in NVivo which ensured
a certain intimacy with the material. Data were then organised by imposing a coding structure,
providing the researcher with a fresh perspective code by code. This prompted insights and themes
that were explored further by interrogating the data. Analysis was conducted in layers, commencing
with a reading of the individual codes, then analysing the codes under four key headings (the basis
for Chapters 4-7 of this thesis) followed by an integration of these insights with the literature and a
synthesis – the development of new theoretical understanding – in the Discussion chapter (8).
66
Figure 3 Analysis Process
Template analysis was deployed to provide an organising framework for the analysis and
interpretation of the data collected. Template analysis is a well-recognised means of analysis for
research into workplace mediation (Bennett, 2014; Saundry, 2012; Saundry and Wibberley, 2012). It
can accommodate a range of epistemological positions, including an interpretivist approach, where
meaning is sought in language (Kvale, 2007a) but is inappropriate for a radical relativist (discourse
analysis) perspective (King, 2004b) where language is the object of analysis.
Template analysis relies on the labelling or coding of text with the themes or issues of importance to
the researcher’s interpretation. The set of codes – the template – is based on the interview topic
guide which is in turn derivative of the research questions (King, 2004b), although in practice the
initial template may be formulated once exploratory interviews have been conducted (Brooks and
King, 2014). Once the final version of the template has been defined, analysis and interpretation of
the data can commence. The coding of the text is in itself a ‘flat, descriptive account of the data’
(King, 2004b: 17) and interpretation the means to produce a thicker, richer synthesis of themes
illustrated by particular examples. Interpretation is a subjective process but one that can be
approached to a degree systematically.
In this research, the two pilot interviews were utilised to lay the foundation for the codes. These are
known in NVivo as nodes whereas interviewees are sources. Having transcribed, read, annotated
and re-read these interviews, it was possible to translate the topic guide into a hierarchy of codes
shown under ‘Literature’ in Appendix 3. To this was added a set of codes for each of the survey
Transcription, reading,
anotating, re-reading
Coding
Literature
Survey
Emergent
Analysis
Power
Theory
Goals
Co-mediation
Synthesis
67
questions (‘Survey’). Finally, a third set of codes was added (‘Emergent’) reflecting themes, such as
neutrality and metaphor that were surfacing in the pilot interviews, to form an initial template.
Coding the interviews involved the researcher working through each interview and allocating
sections of text to one or more nodes. Having completed this task, it was possible to read the data
for a further time with a different perspective; by node rather than by source. Reading in this
manner started to show commonalties and differences across the interviewees. For example, there
was evidence that some mediators used the metaphor of conversation to explain their practice.
From here it was possible by the use of text search in NVivo to identify where in the source text this
metaphor had been used and shed light on the meanings being conveyed. The researcher was thus
able to respond to the emergence of phenomena by the re-interrogation of the data.
The use of NVivo thus provided a database that was organised by node and searchable by key word.
The use of nodes, which in turn were derived from the template drawn from the research questions,
was important in guiding and framing the researcher’s thinking. The ability to search by key word
enabled a deeper drill into any particular theme across a given source. NVivo as a database was
valuable to this researcher as an efficient means of handling data and to convey to the reader that
data has been handled in a systematic manner. However, an efficient means of organising and
reading the data still required an effective analysis.
3.6.1 Emergent Data
However, whilst interesting for the researcher, such emergence was fragmentary; a patchwork of
snapshots at a micro level without a sense of coherence or connection to the larger theme of social
interaction. For instance, looking at mediator goals it emerged that mediators have a concept of the
importance of recognition and, to a lesser degree, empowerment; insights that are important but
need to be set into a wider context, namely the research questions. In order to do so a further
macro level template was required and nodes were grouped under four key headings. The choice of
these headings reflected what had emerged from the data and a judgement by the researcher that
these related to the research questions and could create a cogent set of conclusions in the area of
social interaction.
Goals: Interviewees’ responses to the questionnaire statements and the implications
for goal setting.
Power: Examining mediators’ conception of power in mediation, their own and that
of the parties.
Co-mediation: The practice of co-mediation.
68
Theory: Examining interviewees’ understanding of theory and what their practice
implied for theory.
Under these headings the researcher was able to progress the analysis by using the writing process
to generate thinking and vice versa; analysis becoming sharper as a narrative was constructed; data
being re-examined to check if they supported the narrative. An explanation for the choice of these
particular headings is provided in the introduction of each chapter. However, they remain, to a
degree, a subjective choice by the researcher, albeit one guided by intensive reading of the data and
the frame of the research questions. The effectiveness of the choice may perhaps be judged by the
rolling forward of their analysis into the synthesis stage of the Discussion chapter and their
contribution to an improved understanding of mediators and social interaction.
One final emergent element of data occurred in the survey data collected in the process of
interviewing. The initial intention was to ask interviewees to score each answer as a prompt towards
reflection and then expand on their answers, thereby generating qualitative data (described in
Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). However, having gathered the numerical data, a decision was made to
include this in aid of the analysis and discussion presented in chapter 4. This mixed methods
approach – discussed in Section 3.3 – should be seen as a pragmatic means of responding to
emergent data with the aim of developing a richer analysis.
3.7 Reflection
A particular issue in qualitative research is the perennial question of how many interviews is enough
(Baker and Edwards, 2012). Numbers must ultimately yield sufficient data to answer the research
question, but this presents a problem in the sense that decisions must be made at the recruitment
stage of the project. Literature suggests that the methodology selected guides the initial decision on
numbers, but warns that other factors often come into play obliging the researcher to act
pragmatically:
‘…inside determinants of projects (methodological and epistemological considerations)
should be more important in answering the question of ‘how many’, it is often the outside
factors that play a more central role’ (Flick, in Baker and Edwards, 2012: 6)
In designing this research, it was envisaged that two or three institutions would be willing to
participate and that at each university it would be possible to recruit three or four mediators, i.e.
eight to nine interviewees and 16 or more interviews over Phases Two and Three. This was felt to be
a number consistent with a co-constructivist methodology and within the resource constraints of the
researcher (King, 2004a). In the event, six institutions engaged in the research, and including the two
69
pilot interviews, a total of 20 Phase Two interviews were conducted. However, only two Phase Three
interviews were conducted where a mediation had taken place shortly after Phase Two interviews
were conducted with the two mediators involved. The reasons for this shortfall are not entirely
clear. At the end of each Phase Two interview each participant expressed an interest in participating
in the subsequent phase, but cautioned that this would need to await the assignment of a case. The
subsequent dearth of volunteers for Phase Three suggests that, in the delay ensuing between the
Phase Two interviews and the next case, enthusiasm waned.
What was learned from this shortfall in Phase Three? Clearly no longitudinal data could be adduced,
and communication between researcher and participants was curtailed. However, Becker proposes
that ‘…a single interview is adequate in order to establish if something is possible’ (in Baker and
Edwards, 2012: 6). In this study, two interviews were obtained that demonstrate the effect of
reflection that is guided rather than open-ended, a point examined further in Chapter 9. Further, the
data gathered from these Phase Two interviews were subsequently used to supplement that of the
Phase Two interviews enabling the analysis of certain aspects of interaction to be amplified as
described in Chapter 4.
Beyond the question of quantity of interviews is the issue of quality. Did the 20 interviews provide
sufficient depth? In particular, could the structure of the interview overcome a pitfall, observed
initially in group work with U1 (where the first group session took place) whereby mediators
typically reflect on technique and micro practice whereas the study needed to access meta-level
thinking? The response from interviewees suggests the interviews were effective in accessing depth,
as illustrated by one exchange:
(Researcher): ‘Indeed so, if you use the term narrative it invites that type of view and again
you can juxtapose that with a more transactional approach to it. And I wonder, do we adopt
a different style depending if that is emerging to us, or is that how we, as individual
mediators, perceive of what's going on in the mediation room?’
(John): ‘Yes, I think the reflection on this is interesting because I think we tend to reflect on
things from quite a functional level, what works, what didn't work, do we get the outcome
we were hoping to get rather than on the theoretical backgrounds to it and the way that
people come into the room and have approached it. So, it's useful to start to thinking about it
in that way’.
A further consideration is the question of what or who the 18 interviewees who participated in the
main study represent. Clearly, they represent a set of workplace mediators with limited experience,
70
as shown in Figure 1, but are they typical of mediators in universities? More particularly, is any one
mediator representative of the institution in which they practice? For instance, can the one
interviewee recruited from U3 be considered representative of the practice of mediation at that
institution? To address the question of representation, we turn to further details of the interviewees
as provided by Figures 4-7.
Previous research, involving 18 institutions, suggested that while the Human Resources department
in a university is often in charge of the mediation service, mediators are drawn from across the
institution (Poyntz, 2012). However, in the present study, participants were more likely to be
performing an HR role, as illustrated in Figure 4, reflecting Bennett’s observation that only 25% of HE
institutions chose not to train HR staff as mediators (Bennett, 2014). The main role performed by
interviewees fell into one of three areas: Human Resources (HR); Learning and Development (also
known as Organisational Development and often a subgrouping within HR); and then an eclectic mix
including just one academic and three administrators. Amongst those interviewed were three
mediators who also act as scheme coordinators and one who had retired from such a position but
continued to practice as a mediator.
Figure 4 Participants by Main Role
Mediators included in this study did not, with one exception, practice outside of their university, and
this narrow focus limited their opportunities to learn from external experiences. All but one of the
participants had received higher education or completed a professional route equivalent. Of these,
six had studied HR Management or the CIPD equivalent and six had studied courses that had
significant elements of psychology and or sociology. A contrast can be drawn here, based on the
experience in a workshop conducted by the researcher with Acas mediators, where the comparable
figure was 50%.
71
Figure 5 Participants by Education
This reliance on mediators from HR may explain a gender imbalance in the participants that is
characteristic of this management function, as shown in Figure 6. Such a gender imbalance in
workplace mediation has been noted in other research (Latreille, 2011) and, it has been argued, is
potentially problematic.
Figure 6 Participants by Gender
All participants had received formal training in mediation from one of the main providers of such
training (Bennett, 2014), although this was spread across a number of providers as shown in Figure
7. Typically, a university will use a single provider to train a cohort and initiate a mediation service.
Thereafter, mediators trained by other providers may join the service. Pairing mediators who have
received different basic training can introduce a challenge in building an effective partnership, an
aspect which is discussed further in Chapter 6.
72
Figure 7 Participants by Training Provider4
Further variations between the universities were observed. Two of the universities (U2 and U4) were
heavily reliant on two mediators who took the bulk of cases. U4 was characterised by a
preponderance of mediators drawn from Organisational Development who had a coaching
background. U2 was heavily reliant on mediators from HR and there was a particular concern
expressed in this university as to mediation sitting within HR; a concern that was voiced in the
previous study (Poyntz, 2012). U6 had the widest mix of mediators and the researcher had
previously run (in 2012) a workshop for these mediators on transformative mediation. U5 was the
only institution practising solo rather than co-mediation.
Nonetheless, analysis of the data suggested that personal schema as proposed by Kressel (Kressel,
2013) have the greatest influence on personal style. Accordingly, the data have been considered as
one set: a case study of less experienced mediators who probably are a reflection across the
university sector and whose span of experience enables the theorising of a developmental process
of practice integration. Clustered as one set, it is suggested, the twenty interviews provided the
necessary and sufficient basis for research.
Having set out the methodology and method deployed in the research, we now turn to the first of
the chapters containing empirical data.
4 CMP, TCM and Mediation UK are organisations specialising in the training of workplace mediators and
providing consultancy services in workplace conflict. Acas is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, a statutory body that trains workplace mediators and offers mediation services.
73
Chapter 4 – Mediator Goals and Drivers
4.1 Introduction
The beliefs and perceptions that mediators hold about mediation, its goals and how success is
measured are important drivers of their behaviour (Herrman et al., 2003). Simple control systems
like a thermostat enable a heating or cooling system to ramp up until a set (goal) temperature is
achieved. Looking at mediation as a control system, mediators are said to continually adjust their
interventions and judge the interaction in a mediation until goals are reached (Wall and Dunne,
2012). Goals are addressed in basic training and further refined within each university mediation
service, but how well do these stated goals match the beliefs and perceptions of individual
mediators?
Goals are not fixed static points for either the parties or the mediator. As mediators interact with
parties in mediation, wants, needs, and expectations surface and mediators need to adjust their own
sights accordingly; goals in mediation are emergent. Moreover, goals may be multiple and
potentially conflicting. Faced with complexity, mediators may make choices as to which goals they
pursue in order to simplify matters to a manageable degree. Such simplification eases cognitive
immobilisation – the animal caught in the headlights effect – but can lead to prioritisation of the
transactional goal of agreement (Wall and Dunne, 2012); a partial achievement which, as Cyert and
March theorised in the field of behavioural economics, is deemed good enough and satisfices rather
than maximises (1963).
In an earlier study of Israeli mediators, researchers developed a range of standard statements about
mediator goals, perceptions, practices and criteria for success based on semi-structured interviews
with 30 mediators (Zarankin, et al, 2014). These statements were subsequently used in quantitative
research with a group of 189 mediators where participants answered each question on a six-point
scale. Participants were drawn from the fields of family, business and community in addition to
workplace mediation with a span of experience from three to eleven years. This current study builds
upon the foundation of the Israeli study using it as a point of departure, for working with
interviewees, and as a reference point for analysing results.
For this present research, working with a group of 18 university workplace mediators, a mixed
approach was adopted, as described previously, which forms the basis for the analysis presented in
this chapter. Participants were presented with a selected sub set of the questions, invited to respond
on the six-point scale but additionally asked to add explanations for their choice. This method
provided participants with a frame for their engagement, enabling them to add context to their
74
answer, and critically built a rapport with the researcher which paved the way for the subsequent
semi-structured segment of the interview.
This chapter examines how mediators make sense of goals and how they communicate that sense to
parties, both explicitly and tacitly through their practice. The material adduced here comes from two
sources. Firstly, the structured part of the interview where participants responded to the
questionnaire and augmented their answers by expanding on the reasons behind their scoring.
Secondly, the two Phase Three interviews which provide a guided reflection on a specific recent
mediation. In the analysis, comparisons are drawn with the results of the earlier Israeli study and
with the responses of the two experienced mediators interviewed in the pilot study.
4.2 Context
Context is important to understanding how participants answer survey questions. Participants
construct a meaning for each statement which reflects their own points of reference and experience.
Questions that might serve to explain mediation to a fellow mediator are not necessarily used when
conversing with the parties. Mediation as negotiation is a case in point:
‘I think you're right, it [negotiation] is the word. In essence it is exactly what you're carrying
out, but that word has got a certain connotation for people and a certain context and that's
not where we've looked to position it’ (Nicola)
Where participants are drawn from differing fields of mediation, differences of interpretation may
arise. The 18 mediators interviewed in this research, however, shared something in common; all
practised mediation in the same type of setting, the university workplace. There were two
exceptions: one mediator had further experience in neighbour (community) mediation and another
in employment mediation, a dispute which is heading towards an employment tribunal and where
consequently mediation had been used ‘much more as a negotiation tool’ (Diane).
A particular aspect of context is important when seeking to compare mediation across different
fields of practice and that is the extent of voluntary participation. Voluntariness is often viewed as an
essential criterion for successful engagement in the mediation process (Irvine, 2007; Latreille, 2011),
but may in practice be limited or perceived to be limited; mediation may operate in the shadow of
some alternative adjudicative process that conditions how the parties engage (Feuille and Kolb,
1994; Latreille, 2010). In the university workplace, parties are routed to mediation in ways that
stretch the notion of voluntary participation: ‘Voluntary is a very loose term. It's kind of forced
voluntary’ where parties have been directed by HR Operations and ‘they've already had
75
conversations and the word 'grievance' has been bouncing around and it's like before we go down
that formal route let's try this’ (Rachel).
Allowing participants to reflect on and explain their numerical answers revealed a certain dualism in
their thinking between what mediation could or should offer and what actually occurs in practice.
This dualism points to two themes that recur throughout this study: firstly, that mediators face
challenges in translating what has been learned in the classroom and reinforced in role play into the
reality of practice; and secondly, that personal schema influence this translation and the
development of individual theories of practice.
As mediators experience practice they gain insight into the potential of mediation but also the
constraints of the context in which mediation operates. Mediation has the potential to empower the
parties, but this does not always occur: ‘that's a hideous contextual one. I can think of some people
for whom it hasn't’ (Lynda). Mediation can encompass relational intentions, but transactional
realities may prevail: ‘the circumstances in the university means that it doesn't always seek that. It's
about finding resolution in a work-based context rather than a broader relationship context’ (Frank).
4.3 Survey Analysis
The original Israeli research was designed to investigate the role schema of mediators, ‘the mental
filter or interpretive lens that shapes individuals’ understanding of their role and their subsequent
behaviour’ (Zarankin et al., 2014: 141). Mediators were surveyed in a series of 33 statements,
designed to explore attitudes in three categories: the purpose of mediation, the goals of mediation
and success criteria in mediation. The first category examines what is described as mediator
orientation, their macro level view of mediation, their ‘perceptions of the essence of mediation’
(Nelson, et al, 2010: 295). Goals and success criteria represent the enactment of this macro view in
practice.
Factor analysis was subsequently used to cluster their results into three groups for each category as
shown in Table 5 (Zarankin et al., 2014: 144). There is a degree of correspondence across the three
groups: an instrumental orientation in the purpose of mediation matches with an agreement
emphasis in goals and success criteria. Similarly, a transformative orientation aligns with a
relationship approach. This correspondence echoes a division noted in the literature between a
settlement and a relational approach to mediation (Wall and Kressel, 2012), a theme which is
examined further in this thesis.
76
Table 5 Factor Analysis in Original Research (adapted from Zarankin et al, 2014)
Purpose of mediation Goals of mediation Success criteria in mediation
Instrumental Orientation (I)
Interest in settling a specific
dispute
Agreement Emphasis (A)
Settlement focus
Agreement (A)
Transformative Orientation (T)
Interest in strengthening
disputants and their relationship
Relationship Goal (R)
Communication and mutual
recognition
Relationship (R)
Social Positive Orientation (SP)
Strengthening weak groups and
lessen power inequality
Process Emphasis (P)
Focus on process not
conclusion
Process (P)
In this research, the full set of statements was utilised in the pilot study before excluding four on the
grounds of relevance and the time available with interviewees (a full list of statements is provided in
Appendix 6). Each participant in the main study was therefore presented with 29 statements and
asked to respond from 1 for ‘strong disagreement’ through to 6 for ‘strong agreement’. Although
participants were provided with the questionnaire in advance, all except one interviewee chose to
answer during the course of the interview. In the tables below, the mean score for each statement is
shown in ranking order from high to low. Alongside each statement is the score recorded in the pilot
study for the two experienced mediators each with more than 20 years practice (Paul, a facilitative
mediator and Ciara, a transformative mediator). Numerical responses were entered into the data set
accompanied by two additional parameters, the gender and experience (number of mediations
undertaken) of the participants. Analysis was subsequently undertaken using SPSS, producing a
correlation matrix which is shown in Appendix 7 and a one-way ANOVA which is shown in Appendix
8.
The analysis of results in this present research utilises the analytical framework of the earlier study
and examines each of the three categories in turn. Under each category the numerical data are
presented and then discussed in the light of explanatory comments, where these were made by
participants, and Pearson correlation coefficients, where these were significant.
77
4.3.1 Purpose of Mediation
Table 6 illustrates two aspects of mediator orientation. Whilst the highest priority is assigned to
communication: ‘that’s what we do’ (Paul), ‘one of the key features’ (David), mediators conceived
the purpose to be a mix of transformative and instrumental elements. Conversely, a relatively low
ranking is accorded to social positive statements which rate the impact of mediation on society.
Mediators clearly believed in the potential of mediation to make an impact beyond an individual
case (Carolyn, Frank) but doubted it actually made that contribution in the context of their own
practice: ‘I struggle to see how we're improving society by using it in the setting that I'm using it’
(John).
Table 6 Purpose of Mediation
Statement: ‘Mediation is…?’
Mean
Score
(n=18)
Paul Ciara
A tool to create communication between people (T) 5.5 6 5
A technique for resolving a conflict (I) 5.3 6 3
Enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the other’s needs (T) 4.9 4 6
An economical procedure to resolve a conflict (I) 4.9 6 4
A flexible procedure to resolve a conflict (I) 4.6 6 4
Is an educational experience (T) 4.6 4 5
Encourages one to help oneself (T) 4.4 6 5
Empowers the parties by strengthening awareness of their self-worth (T) 4.3 4 3
A way of life (T) 3.4 5 5
Allows for participants’ moral growth (T) 3.1 3 5
Changes the character of the parties, and of society as a whole (SP) 2.8 4 2
Reduces power inequality in society (SP) 2.7 1 2
Bush and Folger propose in their transformative model that the achievement of recognition and
empowerment is essential, in combination necessary and sufficient. However, interviewees in the
78
present study ranked recognition (4.9) higher than empowerment (4.3). Examining interviewees’
commentary on their scoring, this difference appears to arise from viewing recognition as integral to
a good mediation (Diane), ‘a huge part of why it works, when it works’ (John), one of the most
important aspects of mediation because it paves the way to ongoing longer relationships (David).
However, empowerment is viewed more as a by-product of mediation rather than a primary focus
for the mediator. It is ‘not necessarily the main purpose for mediation’ (Susan), but something that
might occur within the process in the form of self-worth arising from parties being listened to
(Carolyn) and being ‘given a voice’ (John).
Mediation as education was scored moderately (4.6) because interviewees again saw it as a by-
product of mediation: ‘Can be, it isn't always’ (John); something that may occur but is not the focus
or prime goal of the mediator:
‘I think it can be for some people, very educational I think, others pass through it without
necessarily reaping the benefit that could accrue… introspecting now that I enter a mediation
more with the intention of helping other people resolve a dilemma than I do thinking that I'm
going to help them to learn’ (Tim)
Mediation as a ‘Way of Life’ (3.4) was answered in terms of its impact on the life of the mediator
external to mediation. Whilst one interviewee saw mediation as philosophy, ‘a way of practising
your life’ (Michael), most were more pragmatic: ‘it can be a useful discipline… I wouldn't describe it
as a way of life’ (John), ‘I would like it to be, but I don't see it as so’ (Lynda), and saw skills that could
be transferred into a main role (Sarah) or ‘to negotiate everyday conversations, everyday situations’
(Frank), and applied in ‘all kinds of contexts’ (Marian). Such pragmatism may stem from accumulated
practice, as the statement showed a negative correlation with experience (ρ=-0.586, n=18, p<0.05).
This might indicate the onset of ‘weltschmerz’, the experience of practice tempering the
enthusiasms of the novice. This result contrasts with the scores given by Paul and Ciara, who
strongly identified with the statement, each scoring it at five. However, Paul and Ciara had chosen to
make mediation a core, rather than occasional, activity and consequently mediation has become an
expression of professional life.
Commentary often focused on a single word in a statement that had a particular resonance for the
interviewee and shed light on their orientation. For example, two interviewees focused on the word
‘procedure’ in the statement ‘mediation is a flexible procedure to resolve a conflict’. This reflected
how they wanted to position themselves within the interaction. Procedure was seen as ‘top down
79
and dictatorial’ (Erica) and ‘as something you do to somebody’ (Lynda), indicating a preference to
relate to the parties at a level of equals, a power-with perspective, as described further in Chapter 4.
The proposition that mediation is an economical procedure to resolve a conflict begs the question,
addressed in interviewee comments, compared to what? Mediation was seen as economical
compared ‘with the damage that is done if you don't do the mediation’ (Tim), or ‘people leaving the
business, not being as productive at work as they otherwise would be’ (David). Nonetheless,
mediation was viewed as ‘resource intensive’ (Lynda), and also ‘not cheap’ (Tim) once the salaries of
those involved are accounted for (Marian).
Curiously, the data analysis suggested two unexpected gender effects in comparison to the earlier
Israeli study. The original study concluded that females were more likely to express a transformative
orientation than males, but both were equally drawn to an instrumental orientation. However, this
did not hold true for the group of university mediators engaged in the current study. In terms of
recognition, the statement ‘Mediation enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the
other’s needs’ (T) (M=1; F=0), produced a positive correlation with gender, i.e. male mediators were
more likely to agree (ρ=0.471, n=18, p<0.05). Further, the statement ‘Mediation is a technique for
resolving a conflict’ (I), produced a negative correlation (ρ = -0.483, n=18, p<0.05) with gender (M=1;
F=0), i.e. female mediators were more likely to agree.
Additionally, an analysis of means was carried out to test the null hypothesis that gender has no
effect on the responses to each of the 29 statements. The one-way ANOVA with the statements as
dependent variables and gender as the independent variable, showed that in three cases the null
hypothesis could be rejected, i.e. that there is a significant difference between male and female
responses to these statements. As indicated in Table 7, the statements identified were the two
commented on above and a further statement discussed below and thus confirm what was
highlighted by the correlation analysis.
Table 7 One-Way ANOVA examining Gender Effect
Statement Statistic
Mediation is a technique for resolving a conflict F (16) = 4.878, p = 0.042
Mediation enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the
other’s need
F (16) = 4.563, p = 0.048
Success in mediation is achieving an agreement F (16) = 5.848, p = 0.028
80
4.3.2 Goals of Mediation
Mirroring their response to the initial statements concerning the purpose of mediation, participants
again ranked communication as their highest priority goal. Moreover, this ranking is supported with
the highest degree of consensus (see Table 8 below) and fully aligned with the views of the
experienced mediators Paul and Ciara. By contrast, getting agreement between parties has a lower
score (4.1) and a higher dissensus amongst the university mediators (see Table 11 below). This
dissensus is echoed in the respective scores of Paul and Ciara, an expected effect when comparing a
facilitative with a transformative mediator; ‘… resolution of the dispute? Not really’ (Ciara);
‘resolution of dispute... it’s got to be a six’ (Paul).
Table 8 Goals of Mediation
Statement: ’The Goal of Mediation is…?’ Mean
Score
(n=18)
Paul Ciara
To create communication between the parties (R) 5.8 6 6
To bring about the resolution of the dispute (A) 5.3 6 2
To build trust between the parties (R) 4.8 6 5
To empower the parties (R) 4.8 4 5
To create behavioural change between the parties (R) 4.7 5 5
To help parties understand the alternatives for resolving the conflict (P) 4.7 3 5
To get the parties to agree (A) 4.1 6 3
To help parties reveal their interests (P) 4.1 4 4
To create a better society 3.1 4 1
Participants prioritised relational goals (R) over those focused on agreement (A). However, there was
a sense of contingency in doing so; goals recognised as aspiration rather than achievable. Consider
the goal of rebuilding of trust. Parties come to mediation ‘when something’s broken down’ (Carolyn)
and trust is at a low ebb, and so rebuilding trust is seen as a legitimate aim for the mediation.
Nonetheless, it was recognised that rebuilding trust is not always achievable (Angela, John) or
81
valued: ‘the circumstances in the university means that it doesn't always seek that. It's about finding
resolution in a work-based context rather than a broader relationship context’ (Frank).
Relational goals are connected in the mediator mind: ‘If you've got some communication and some
trust, the third one, there might be some behavioural change’ (Lynda). Moreover, as seen in the
scoring in Table 8, these goals are ranked in the order described by Lynda. Mediators ordered their
goals, prioritising communication and trust because they are ‘more important and mediation is
better at dealing with those’ (David). Additionally, they expressed some hesitancy regarding
behavioural change as this ‘might be an HR goal, but is that the true goal of mediation?’ (Marian).
Similar to their responses to Social Positive statements in the orientation category, mediators again
focused on the potential for the individual disputants and their relationship, whilst recognising the
effect of mediating a case could ripple further:
‘I don't get a sense of that big picture when I do mediation. I'm more concerned with the immediate
impact on the parties involved, and possibly the teams within which they reside. But I can see that if
those communications improve infinitesimally, you'll improve society and the more you do the better
it gets’ (Tim)
What the numbers in the Table 8 do not show, but interviewees’ comments do, is a distinction they
drew between a goal and an activity. An activity, whilst important, may happen or be induced by
mediator intervention in the course of mediation but is not considered a goal: ‘not a goal, it’s a
means to an end’ (Lynda); ‘I don't think (revealing interests) is the goal of mediation, per se …
although it's something that can be explored as part of mediation’ (Carolyn). Thus, changing
behaviour was seen as potentially valuable to resolving conflict but not as a goal in itself: ‘… in order
to find a way forward the behaviours that brought them to the room couldn't continue to exist, so it
must be. I wouldn't think of it as a goal’ (Erica).
The contingent nature of mediator intervention is illustrated by one move that may be made in
response to an impasse; a form of reality testing which relies on the shadow of formal processes in
the workplace:
‘… if you see a mediation case that isn't progressing and you start talking about the other
way in which the situation might be resolved… the potential impact, the more long term
impact that can have and the more permanence of that particularly on someone's HR record
or whatever. Once you start discussing those alternatives to mediation, sometimes, not
always… people work through mediation in a more focused way and pay more attention to
it’ (Michael)
82
4.3.3 Success Factors in Mediation
Participants’ responses to success criteria rated relational statements highest, with process and
agreement factors accorded similar ratings, echoing the preferences shown for relational over
agreement goals. Set alongside these is a clear difference between Paul and Ciara when considering
the achievement of agreement and negotiation as success factors, reflecting again the respective
foci of the facilitative and transformative models.
Table 9 Success Factors in Mediation
Statement: ’Success in Mediation is…?’ Mean
Score
(n=18)
Paul Ciara
When communication between the parties is enhanced (R) 5.6 6 6
When a party feels that his/her narrative was recognized (R) 5.5 5 5
When hostility between the parties is reduced (R) 5.5 4 4
When a party understands his/her own and the other party’s interests (P) 5.1 6 6
Achieving an agreement that will show stability over time (A) 4.9 6 4
When parties better understand alternative solutions for resolving
conflict (P)
4.8 6 5
Achieving an agreement (A) 4.6 6 2
When a negotiation was carried out between the parties (P) 3.8 6 2
The lowest mean score is accorded to negotiation (3.8), which is accompanied by a weak negative
correlation with experience (ρ = -0.419, n=18, p <.10). This arises from an understanding of the term
as representing a transactional distributive, rather than an integrative, approach. As examined in
Chapter 7, when analysing the metaphors used to describe their practice, university mediators have
an aversion to conceiving of mediation as negotiation that points to a relational rather than a
transactional conception of the process.
The importance of a narrative being recognised was accorded a high score (5.5), a strong level of
consensus (Table 9) accompanied by a weak negative correlation with experience (ρ = -0.441, n=18,
p=<0.10). Discussing the reasoning behind their scoring, interviewees highlighted the importance of
83
recognition. This was explained as arising from parties ‘being heard’ (Erica) and accompanied by
tangible emotional benefit:
‘I think that's really important… what came out of my last experience. The fact that, that
party's narrative was very much recognised and she felt so much better as a result of that.’
(Carolyn)
Recognition, moreover, has a dimension of mutuality: of being both understood and understanding,
having ‘a version or perception of the ways things are being understood’ (John). Mutuality and
understanding are key elements for mediators, as ‘mutual understanding is what actually leads to
agreement and... relationships’ (Diane).
One mediator was distinctive however, in focusing on the narrative aspect of the statement,
explaining that narratives are subjective, can change and may be challenged in mediation:
‘[Narrative] implies they've constructed a version of events for themselves which obviously everybody
does. Having the narrative understood, of course, doesn't necessarily mean that you've challenged
your narrative in any way which I would say is also a part of mediation, to reflect that your narrative
isn't the only one. Obviously, everybody tells themselves a story as to how their lives go and how their
relationships are and that's not necessarily other people's perception of how they've gone. I think it
flags the subjective element of people's views of how they've been.’ (John)
Viewing narratives as subjective and adaptable has echoes of the narrative model but caution is
required before labelling practice. The use of a technique such as storytelling can also be employed
in the facilitative model. What distinguishes a difference in approach is the reasoning behind the use
of any one technique. Is storytelling a means of a party being heard, or to invite recognition or a
prelude to the deconstruction of power structures? This point is explored further in Chapter 8 where
a comparison is drawn between mediation models.
Finally, a statistical analysis of the data again revealed a gender-based variance with the original
study with the statement ‘Success is achieving an agreement’ producing a positive correlation with
gender (ρ = 0.517, n=18, p<0.05), i.e. males were more inclined to agree, whereas the original study
found no difference between the genders.
84
Table 10 Consensus in Statements (Top 5 ranked by standard deviation)
Statement Mean Score
(n=18)
SD
The Goal of Mediation is to create communication between the parties 5.8 0.4
Success in Mediation is when a party feels that his/her narrative was recognized 5.5 0.5
Success in Mediation is when communication between the parties is enhanced 5.6 0.6
The Goal of Mediation is to bring about the resolution of the dispute 5.3 0.7
Mediation is a tool to create communication between people 5.5 0.7
Table 11 Dissensus in Statements (Top 5 ranked by standard deviation)
Statement Mean
Score
(n=18)
SD
Mediation allows for participants moral growth 3.1 1.7
The Goal of Mediation is to create a better society 3.1 1.5
The Goal of Mediation is to help parties reveal their interests 4.1 1.5
The Goal of Mediation is to get the parties to agree 4.1 1.4
The Goal of Mediation is to help parties understand the various alternatives for
resolving the conflict
4.7 1.4
4.4 Broader themes
In Section 4.3, the results of the questionnaire were examined with reference to the categories
utilised in the earlier study. We turn now, in this section, to examine four aspects that extend across
these categories: communication; agreement; interests; and expectations.
4.4.1 Communication
Mediators rated communication as their highest priority because its thread runs throughout a case;
communication as problem, means and goal. Parties arrive at mediation because communication has
malfunctioned or been absent: ‘all of the cases are around miscommunication or mismanagement of
85
some description’ (Michael). Communication makes the conduct of mediation effective; for parties
to ‘explore and explain themselves and explain why they're there’ (Angela). Finally, mediators focus
on a goal of parties leaving mediation with communication restored: ‘If you don't aim for that
longer-term communication improvement it will just regress and fall back into this conflict again’
(David).
Lack of communication can spark conflict because in the absence of countervailing information
parties operate in a vacuum, where assumptions, suspicions and narratives build (John), feeding the
misattribution of the behaviour of others. In the absence of effective communication, people can
‘create their own reality of what the issue is’ (Penny). Where conflict has taken root, lack of
communication can exacerbate matters and damage relationships; ‘conflict itself is not necessarily a
problem but it's the way that it manifests itself, the way people communicate or talk through a
conflict’ (David); ‘the breakdown in communication had led to something escalating, a relationship
problem escalating’ (John).
Communication within mediation can be viewed as instrumental, facilitating the exchange of
information, promoting understanding (David, Diane) and producing agreements that work for both
parties, ‘which is what the facilitative model does or certainly that's my understanding of it’ (David).
It was however, also seen in relational terms; communication as connection. A party’s confidence in
communication, being able to be free and open, may be impaired. The mediator then acts to
establish rapport, rebuilding communication with that party, one-on-one, as a step towards their
regaining the capacity to reconnect with the other party (Frank). Restored communication between
the parties becomes the ‘break through moment… they both individually recognise the worth of the
other person and the value of the other person… that's empowering’ (Michael).
Sometimes parties are quite explicit in their need to address communication and mediators will
work with parties to secure improvement. However, even when not raised by the parties, mediators
expressed a drive towards better communication, ‘because we want to get to that end goal and we
want to look at ways that we might work better together might be the end outcome… based around
communication’ (David). Emphasising communication within mediation is done with the expectation
that participants will learn different patterns, that even ‘very small changes to the way that they
communicate would improve the situation’ (Michael); that the experience is one ‘that (parties) could
reflect on and use further’ (Erica). Positive communication paves the way for parties to leave
mediation ‘feeling as though they've resolved some differences, if not all of them’ (Anna).
86
What happens when parties struggle to communicate in mediation? What role does the mediator
play? When asked to comment on their use of reframing in a recent case, two interviewees pointed
to the conscious use of this micro practice to combat the use of inflammatory language by one of
the parties. The aim was to make the words more palatable to the hearer (David) whilst inviting the
speaker to a fresh perspective: ‘It's my role to help somebody to see something from a different
perspective’ (Angela). To act not as an investigator in search of a/the truth, as might be the case in a
grievance process, but to help parties recognise two realities or recollections of the precipitating
incident.
In doing this the mediator becomes a translator ‘between two people speaking different languages’,
keeping the conversation flowing and outcome driven (David). Reframing seeks to change the way a
party communicates their perspective, but hopefully in a manner that does not change meaning:
‘… you need to be sure that you understand what the meaning and the content is that the
person who you're reframing is trying to put across… the biggest risk is that lack of
understanding or losing engaging with it because you're trying to impose a different
meaning on what they're saying’ (David)
But what if communication is the issue between the parties? Does smoothing by reframing side step
the problem? Reframing was seen as a legitimate mediator response to short term difficulties in the
interaction:
‘I think there is that risk… But that shouldn't preclude the use of techniques to aid the
conversation during mediation… the purpose of reframing. It's a short-term way of helping
people understand and engage in conversation’ (David).
Reframing is seen as a useful tool, where required, for supporting conversation but nonetheless
positions the mediator within the conversational stream. This has implications for interaction that
are explored further in Chapter 8.
4.4.2 Agreement
University mediators drew a clear distinction between agreement (between the parties) and the
resolution of their conflict. Agreement was seen as transactional (Frank), ‘getting an agreement’ an
unwarranted imperative from the mediator (Lynda). Resolution was viewed as relational, connected
to mutual understanding. This is reflected in mediator goals: ‘I don't necessarily think it is the goal of
mediation to get people to agree with each other’ (Nicola); whereas for resolution ‘Yes, absolutely, I
mean that is the goal’ (Carolyn); ‘Yes, that's much more like it’ (Erica). Conflict can be resolved
87
without parties necessarily agreeing with each other providing they are ‘at least considering,
understanding the other side’ (Michael). Parties can fail to agree but:
‘… still have an extremely valuable exchange that involves them understanding one another
much better and being on a better relationship footing but having failed ultimately to have
reached an agreement… I certainly think there are perhaps equally important outcomes one
of which is having reached an agreement, but nearly as important is having heard one
another, understood one another's position’ (John)
Prioritising resolution over agreement is in contrast to the practice of mediation in the commercial
sphere, where resolution is signified by and synonymous with agreement (Herrman, Hollett and
Gale, 2006). Agreement, however, had a particular meaning to interviewees in the present context,
rooted in past events whereas resolution is about the future: ‘it's more about the way forward, they
might never agree on an issue they've had but they might be able to work together again’ (Marian).
In the university workplace, mediation was seen as providing a way forward or the enabling of
mutual understanding, even of difference, by providing the parties ‘space to allow them to listen to
each other and appreciate each other's point of view, more than they did before they went in’
(Nicola).
In practice mediation may fall short of complete resolution, ‘drawing a line under (conflict) and it
never coming up again’ (Michael). Consequently, mediators spoke of bringing relationships to a
manageable state: ‘I think the goal is to find a way forward with which both people can live
comfortably and work together which meets their needs. I guess that is resolving the conflict’ (Erica).
The mutual understanding achieved in mediation was viewed as enabling parties to cope better
when conflict subsequently reoccurs (Michael).
Curiously, mediators made a distinction between conflict resolution as a goal and including its
achievement as a success factor: ‘if we don't get there it doesn't mean it's failed’ (Sarah), ‘I don't
think if the issue is unresolved it's a failure of mediation’ (Angela). The journey through mediation
was clearly viewed by interviewees as being as important as the destination because ‘it may actually
bring out some growth and some learning’ (Angela).
4.4.3 Interests
The identification of interests is an integral part of facilitative mediation (Kressel, 2007), important
‘in order to identify areas for agreement’ (Saundry, Bennett, and Wibberley, 2013: 6). Consequently,
one might expect a goal relating to interests to be ranked uniformly highly by university mediators
trained in this model. However, when addressing the statement ‘To help parties reveal their
88
interests’, there was a low score (4.1) and a major divide within the interviewed group, producing a
high level of dissensus (Table 11) and a weak negative correlation with experience (ρ = -0.403, n=18,
p<0.10). For some it was axiomatic to anybody practising mediation that ‘that's absolutely the goal
of the mediation, what I was doing there’ (Diane) and ‘the language that's used in mediation around
what's driving positions’ (Frank). For others a distinction was required between needs and interests
(Nicola, Lynda), a differentiation which is recognised in the literature (Menkel-Meadow, 2013).
However, a number of participants expressed incomprehension that interests would be raised in the
context of mediation: ‘I genuinely don't think it is about that’ (Angela); ‘I disagree with that I think ...
I don't think it's really about revealing interests’ (Michael).
To these doubters, mediation is not about the parties’ interests but about ‘finding commonality or
finding common ground’ (Michael), ‘trying to get them to recognise that they have something in
common’ (Sarah), ‘listening to what the people are saying and trying to find the common ground’
(John). Common ground is a distinctive metaphor which sheds light on how mediators practice and
their meta-theory; finding rather than constructing pointing to a realist frame. Seeking common
ground is an example of mutualising, a ‘classic mediation strategy taught on any basic training
programme’ which acts to reinforce collaboration (Allport, 2015: 1). However, where mediators
focus on similarities rather than differences the nature of recognition changes; the push towards
common ground, according to proponents of the transformative model, becomes a directive
reframing that makes genuine recognition of the other less likely (Jorgensen, Moen, Antes, Hudson,
and Hendrikson, 1999). Genuine recognition is rooted in mutuality and found in shared
understanding rather than common ground:
‘Getting people understanding each other rather than seeing where there's common
agreement… [Not] “You want that, I want that to, let's agree on that bit, let's find a common
solution”' (Frank)
Curiously, when a different statement regarding interests – ‘When a party understands his/her own
and the other party’s interests’ (Table 9) – was put to interviewees, it prompted a markedly higher
ranking (5.1). The change to explicitly reference the other was perceived as emphasising mutuality
and therefore better received: ‘this for me has an aspect of recognition. Not necessarily agreeing but
at least considering, understanding the other side’ (Michael); ‘a difference between revealing and
understanding each other's interests isn't there’ (Anna).
89
4.4.4 Expectations, Goals and Actions
What happens when mediators are confronted by party behaviour that is extreme and where
boundaries are crossed in norms and expectations? A case discussed by Angela and David in their
Phase Three interviews was considered unusual in both respects. Mediator expectations were
assailed as ‘one of the parties did fall into line with what we wanted from mediation and the other,
for at least a period of time, didn't’ (David). And the norms of party behaviour were breached with
one party shouting angrily and storming out (Angela).
The intention is that the goals of each party are clarified in the course of the preparatory private
meetings (Angela) and therefore ‘reasonably clear goals proposed at the beginning of mediation by
both parties’ (David). Yet in discussing goals individually there is the context of the other: ‘I think
what the individual tells you is important, but I think also what one tells you about the other… also
makes up part of that jigsaw puzzle’ (Angela). Encountering the other in the interaction of the joint
meeting may therefore see other goals emerge: ‘some of the goals changed throughout the course
of the mediation to a more self-reflective approach’ (David).
Mediators are imbued with a set of perceptions about acceptable practice in the university, ‘the way
that the business operates and our obligations to the university’ (David) and the relationship
between the parties, ‘what their job roles were, the expectations of [what] working within the
university are or should be’ (David). In some cases mediators may have a clear sense that university
policy is being infringed by a party but feel obliged, as neutrals, to refrain from comment (Rose).
Mediators start with expectations about how mediation should go ‘which are not necessarily
explicitly shared with the parties’ and encompass ‘the framework for how the mediation is carried
out, how we allow the conversation to flow, what should happen throughout the mediation’ (David).
They mentally have a picture of a ‘ten out of ten outcome that we would have liked at the start of the
day’ (David).
But as the interaction proceeds mediator goals may need to change, recognising ‘there's a significant
risk that we're going to get zero out of ten for the outcome’ but ‘a six or seven out of ten if we really
tighten things up and do pay attention to some of this behaviour that's going on’ (David). In practice
this may require a step outside normal practice to a structured, directive approach, the mediator
constantly challenging and ‘pulling out some of the issues that we felt needed to be brought out’
(David).
90
4.5 Summary
The result of the standardised survey allows a conclusion that university mediators operate under a
range of goals but with a preference for the relational over the transactional or instrumental. This is
best seen when resolution – viewed by mediators as a relational challenge – was prioritised over
transactional agreement. Their most important goal is communication followed by resolution, in
what may be termed the main co-products of mediation in the university workplace. In addition,
emerging from their accompanying comments is a further intermediary goal of recognition, a sub-
goal that enables the main goals to be accomplished. Finally, there is a category of by-products of
mediation such as empowerment. These are effects which may occur but are not goals per se and
consequently not prioritised by university mediators.
The emphasis on communication has an echo of transformative practice where dialogue is seen as
the path to relational empathy, ‘the way in which parties can forge shared new understandings of
each other and of the conflict between them, whether or not solutions are found’ (Zariski, 2010: 217).
However, where communication is threatened, as reported by David and Angela, mediators can
become directive, seeking firmer control of the interaction and deploying micro-practises such as
reframing which is anathema to theorists of the transformative model. This behaviour, contingent
on how the interaction is functioning, echoes the deployment of mediator power and control
analysed in Chapter 5.
The literature suggests that mediators simplify goals into a binary choice between relational and
settlement goals (Wall and Dunne, 2012). However, what is evidenced in this chapter is an
alternative path to simplification. Communication is an example of a foundational step in a laddered
or interconnected goal. An initial goal of communication is mutual understanding; a second goal
leads to trust; and then possibly onwards to behavioural change, each step contingent on the
success of the previous step. Resolution has a similar tiered structure (Figure 8), mediators seeking
to help parties – through mutual understanding – to formulate at least coping strategies in the event
of the re-emergence of conflict but aspiring to partial or even full resolution. Conceiving goals in this
connected contingent manner enables a measure of simplification that facilitates the management
of complexity; mediators can target communication and then incorporate other goals as the
interaction allows and the growth in recognition signals.
91
Figure 8 Contingent Goals
Recognition is closely associated with mutuality, a relating to the other. Mediators seek recognition
by promoting narrative; parties listening and being heard. An indicator of recognition was said to be
the emergence, within the interaction, of mutual understanding. However, there appears to be a
divide in practice amongst the interviewees as to what constitutes recognition: does understanding
relate to common ground or to difference? Previous studies suggest common ground as paving the
way to ‘develop possible solutions to the dispute, or at least a way forward’ (Latreille and Saundry,
2014: 6). Does a contrary approach, emphasising difference, suggest a diminished driver towards
solutions or a meta-theory that is constructivist as opposed to the realist seeker of communality?
The reflections of Angela and David indicate the emergence of goals both for the parties and
mediator contingent on the unfolding interaction. Parties adjust their goals as they start to relate to
the mediators and begin to recognise the other and the possibilities of mediation. Mediators set
goals by judging how far any mediation can progress; sometimes limited to communication, in the
hope that parties at least learn enough to cope in future conflict, at other times it may extend to full
resolution. Further, as described by David, mediators have latent goals based on their expectations
as to conduct in mediation and the university. These are not articulated or acted upon unless norms
of behaviour or attitude are breached.
Many aspects of mediator behaviour and practice examined in this chapter can be traced to the
facilitative model acquired in basic training. There are examples of reframing, directive control and
the metaphor of the mediator as translator. However, this is a partial and therefore potentially
deceptive mapping. A focus on interests may suggest a transactional approach, but interviewees’
further comments in Section 4.4.3 indicate that interests are viewed in a relational context. There is
thus a clear preference for relational goals which marks these university workplace mediators apart
from the problem-solving style traditionally associated with the facilitative model.
Coping
Partial Resolution
Full Resolution
92
Some behaviour highlighted in this chapter might be seen as drawn from the transformative or
narrative models but typically in a way that suggests unconscious hybrid integration. For example
with John, there is evidence of a narrative approach yet both statements on interests – a marker for
the facilitative model – were accorded the highest score (6). In contrast the narrative model
‘proposes that people live their lives according to stories rather than according to inner drives or
interests’ (Winslade and Monk, 2002: 9).
Mediators wrestle with what they learn in basic training and how they perform mediation. They
recognise mediation can operate at different levels but have a preference for the relational. There is
a ‘… surface level, transactional level of mediation which is desirable but actually it's not turning into
its full potential’ (Frank) example of emergence along with tiered goals. What is evidenced in this
chapter is such a process of emergence, with each mediator learning from experience and
developing their own theory of practice; a process discussed earlier in Chapter 5.
Research on mediators has a long history, stretching back to Riskin and his grid (Riskin, 1997), of
seeking to classify mediators and their goals based mostly on observing role play. Imposing such
categorisation produces a patina of order, but this chapter illustrates that such clarity may be
misleading; mediator style is not readily mapped to models, with mediator behaviour and goals
being contingent on interaction. Practising mediation is an essentially personal practice that
operates within a number of frames, drawing on but not limited to initial training: ‘I'm bringing into
that my own experiences, knowledge and way of living life’ (Angela). The desire to classify should be
tempered by the observation that:
‘There is rigidity in insisting that mediators necessarily operate entirely within a
transformative or an outcome-oriented model. Mediators utilize many variations and
combinations of approaches depending on the needs of a case and what each of us brings to
the mediation process’ (Mayer, 2013: 37)
93
Chapter 5 – Power in Mediation
5.1 Introduction
Power is viewed by many as a significant issue in workplace mediation (McKenzie, 2015; Van
Gramberg, 2003), shaping relations both inside and outside the process (Latreille and Saundry,
2014). Power can be seen as problematic in mediation, with critics pointing to the possibility to
entrench pre-existing power imbalances (Narine, 2017) or structures (Seaman, 2010). However,
these perspectives rest upon the assumptions made about the nature and exercise of power in
mediation. To proponents of mediation, power is fluid; ‘concepts of empowerment and power
imbalance are rather slippery to pin down’ (Kelly, 1995: 87) and mediation constitutes a complex
social interaction effective in dealing with power imbalance (Gewurz, 2001).
The exercise of power is an ethical issue for mediators. They must conduct the process in ways
which are perceived as fair by the participants but equally steer the mediation towards a goal. The
use of power to drive towards a goal of settlement may conflict with the empowerment of the
parties; mediators must therefore strike an appropriate balance between means (the interaction)
and ends (goals). Commentators have noted that mediators have foundational concepts such as
neutrality and self-determination as guides to help them plot an ethical path (Coben, 2004; Green,
2005). However, concepts acquired in training are ‘potentially nebulous, ripe for manipulation’
(Coben, 2004: 76) and each mediator must make sense of them in practice.
Practitioners are said to operate on the premise that ‘power differences can be addressed by the
mediation process itself, and by specific mediator strategies and interventions’ (Baylis and Carroll,
2005: 3). A mediator may intervene to balance power by strengthening the weaker party or
weakening the stronger (Moore, 2014). To do so, however, requires the mediator to judge who is
the weaker and what measures are appropriate to redress imbalance, and to do so continuously
throughout the mediation. This runs counter to the mediator’s need to project and act in a neutral
and impartial manner; ‘mediators face a conundrum – they cannot ‘do’ neutrality, nor can they do
without it’ (Astor, 2007: 221). In their analysis of the facilitative model, Bush and Folger conclude
that this dilemma encapsulates an inherent problem (Bush and Folger, 2012). They propose that this
is overcome or bypassed in the transformative model, by focusing on the enabling of empowerment;
opportunities for greater clarity and decision making by the parties (Jorgensen, Moen, Antes,
Hudson, and Hendrikson, 1999).
This chapter examines the attitudes, behaviours and practice of university workplace mediators in
respect of power, and in particular how they view power, of the parties and their own, their
94
obligation to balance power, and their enactment of concepts such as neutrality, impartiality and
empowerment.
5.2 Concepts of Power
Conflict was readily associated with power by interviewees: ‘A lot of the workplace conflict we deal
with is about who has power and how they are wielding that power’ (Diane). When asked about the
nature of power, mediators most frequently referred to the structural or hierarchical nature of the
university workplace: ‘some people get very hung up on that hierarchy’ (Michael). The significance of
hierarchy was epitomised for one interviewee by university grades, something ‘they talk about all
the time… grades are very important within the university’ (Penny). A hierarchical perspective on
power can lead to the view that managers exercise power over the managed. However, that can be
misleading: ‘That's not always the case’ (Sarah), ‘you can easily get a manager who's being bullied’
(Rose), so ‘it is very rarely as simple as that’ (Diane). Indeed, managers entering mediation may feel
threatened (John), feeling that they should hold power but instead they may ‘feel slightly powerless,
they feel like they've have lost control of things’ (Diane).
Mediators recognised that power can emanate from other sources. The experienced employee, one
‘who's been in the university for decades and knows how it all works’ (Diane) can access a
countervailing power resource of information and contacts. Intellectual power impacts conflict, with
‘people being afraid to challenge each other if they have a particular specialism or interest’ (Penny).
Personal factors such as the facility to communicate effectively are recognised as components of
power (Frank). Whilst there was recognition of the diversity of sources of power, mediators relied on
native rather than explicit theory in their understanding of power: ‘Bits I've picked up, management
training and things, thinking about positional power and personal power’ (Diane).
Conceiving of power in this contingent manner, mediators spoke of two types of response. Firstly, as
a process controller, modulating power within the mediation process by applying concepts and
techniques inculcated in initial training and encapsulated in the mantra that the mediator controls
the process and the parties control the content. This is a standardised approach – a foundational
default – but more is required to account for the complexity of power. Accordingly, mediators also
and secondly, act as an interaction observer, monitoring power as it manifests and evolves within
the mediation and responding in support of the process.
5.3 Modulation of Power
There was an expectation expressed by interviewees that the exercise of power is affected when
parties enter into the mediation process; that parties ‘leave power behind’ (Sarah) and recognise
95
each other as individual members of staff (Michael). To facilitate this shift, mediators spoke of the
need to create a ‘level playing field’, a restrictive measure that does not remove ‘inequity of power,
it's about making it more equal’ (Michael), that balances power but does not ‘necessarily completely
prevent there being a power imbalance in the room’ (John).
Mediators acted to level the playing field by enacting and enforcing ground rules that stipulate
parties ‘having equal time to speak and treating each other with respect’ (Rachel). In an exercise of
mediator power, such rules are typically imposed upon and accepted by the parties; ‘the mediator is
essentially saying: “This is how this process will happen, this is how it will work”’ (John). For
mediators, communication is a primary goal (a point discussed further in Chapter 6) and hence rules
to prevent a speaker being interrupted (John, Anna) and ensure equality of time are presented and
enforced: ‘Within a mediation discussion you must be quite tight and almost controlled initially with
the rules of play in that both have equal time to discuss’ (Frank). Mediators expressed the view that
they seek to manage the conversation to ensure an open discussion where parties feel able to speak
freely (Rose). However, they expressed reservations about the extent to which they exercise this
role as manager:
‘Whether that's legitimate or not is more of a grey area where I guess you need to make
more of a judgement call about what's best for the conversation and for the outcomes of the
mediation’ (David)
If ground rules are a stick, controlling the interaction, then the provision of a safe space, a place
where parties can speak freely and be heard, is the carrot. Mediation as a safe space was seen as a
temporary bubble, ‘outwith the real world’ (John); an incubator where a different interaction
between the parties was expected, creating the opportunity for resolving a conflict and, for parties
‘to start to construct a new way of interacting, a new way of working’ (Diane). The building of a safe
space started in the initial private meetings with parties, where mediators set expectations for the
joint meeting that each party will be heard and will listen, and that the mediator will control the
joint interaction to ensure this. Mediator power was seen as critical to sustaining this condition: ‘we
perhaps demonstrate our power, it's not a word I would use, and by controlling the process and
making sure it's a safe process’ (Anna). The initial private meeting was a place where
misapprehensions concerning the mediator’s role could be corrected. In particular, the discovery
that the mediator is not responsible for resolving conflict can impact the power dynamic between
the parties ‘quite considerably’ as parties realise that ‘they have some accountability to resolve the
situation themselves’ (Michael).
96
The safe space, and the ground rules which underpin it, have a particular significance in terms of
symbolic interactionism. The creation of the safe space is a ritual of interaction (Jarrett, 2012),
providing the opportunity for interactional change (Cobb, 2001). Such rituals frame the process for
the audience and shape the relationship between audience and performer. The ritual allows the
tacit recognition by the parties of a mediator’s authority to enforce the ground rules (Jarrett, 2012).
Using the dramaturgical metaphor, rituals such as ground rules become the mise-en-scène, the
setting, lighting, staging and stage design that set up the performance of mediation.
How the mediator elects to use such authority, how they perform their role, is critical to their
relationship with the parties and the parties’ expectations of mediation. The safe space has the
potential to signal to the parties that the mediation process is collaborative and rooted in dialogue.
However, this is best conveyed by the mediator where they jointly construct the ground rules with
the parties rather than impose them.
5.4 Monitoring Power
Modulating power however, was seen to take a mediator only so far: ‘the idea that we can just go in
there and level that out is somewhat simplistic really’ (Diane). Having laid the foundations for
mediation by modulating power, a mediator’s attention would turn to the interaction which was
playing out before them. Mediators were heedful to the performance of power within the
interaction; they ‘tune into and observe what's occurring between people… map it as a power
interaction… it feels like a constant bit of monitoring’ (Lynda). They listened to ‘how things are
delivered, what is the language that has been used’ (Carolyn). Exceptionally, two mediators drew
explicitly on Transactional Analysis to assist them in monitoring power in communication, to ‘identify
where the power is sitting at any given time in mediation’ (David). Where communication between
the parties diverged from the balanced adult-adult, the mediator might ‘intervene and try to re-
summarise that person back into a more adult conversation’ (David).
Signals regarding power can be subtle, revealed in a party treating co-mediators differentially. There
may be a presumption for instance, that ‘one is senior because he's the man or because he's the
centre manager… You spot that by who starts to look at whom and who doesn't look at whom’
(Lynda). Such an awareness of power prompted an internal dialogue within the mediator. Noting
‘there's something going on about power here’ (Lynda) prompted the search for an appropriate
response, one that redirects parties to view the interaction from a different power perspective.
Working together, mediators can reset the power dynamic with deft body language:
97
‘where one of the parties has decided that Tim is the powerful person in the room, Tim will
often look much more to me... not just for me to do or say things but where he is placing his
eyes... so the other person will eventually stop looking at him and start to look at me, for
example’ (Lynda).
Parties may use also referential power, allying themselves to an external source of hierarchical
power within the university, and seeking to influence the power dynamic in the room. Where this
occurred, mediators sought to draw parties back to the balanced interaction set up within
mediation; ‘One might just remind people that mediation is going on between us four and we're the
people in the room’ (Lynda).
5.5 Empowerment
Empowerment represents a developed sense of self which enables one to participate in interaction,
to have a voice and to express oneself (Taylor, 1995: 65). However, parties in conflict may come to
mediation feeling or acting disempowered (Bush and Folger, 1994). Empowerment was a term
introduced to interviewees in the survey that might not otherwise have surfaced in the interaction
between researcher and interviewee. Considered a by-product rather than the main goal of
mediation, interviewees nonetheless were able to provide explanations of empowerment and its
place in their practice.
Empowerment was viewed as an integral part of communication, the expressed primary goal of
university mediators. Mediation represented the opportunity to ‘speak up and put their point of
view across’ (Susan), for both sides to tell their story (Carolyn), to tell the other side how they feel
and to do so in a safe environment (Sarah), and allowed the employee voice in the presence of the
manager (Marian). An indication of empowerment was a confidence and openness in
communication that allows the parties to experience ‘what can happen when open communication
occurs between people’ (Erica).
Mediation represents an empowering of parties compared to alternative and more formal methods
of resolving conflict where HR procedures are followed (Rachel) and ‘you give somebody else your
problem and they would go away and tell you whether that was right or that was wrong and what
was going to happen about it’ (Angela). In contrast, mediation invites the parties to ‘take ownership
for outcomes, behaviour, future interactions’ (Penny), to recognise that it is ‘within their gift to
behave differently as a result of that mediation’ (Nicola), and puts decision making in the hands of
the parties (Anna, David). Such empowerment is experiential; the discovery of a new way of relating,
in that parties come to mediation ‘almost needing permission sometimes to behave differently’
98
(Nicola) and receive ‘permission to have a conversation that they wouldn't otherwise be having’
(John).
Mediators recognised that parties emerge from the bubble of mediation to face the reality of the
workplace, but empowerment is not a means to facilitating settlement and instead the potential for
the start of a new relationship: ‘they're empowered to continue not working in conflict after that, on
their own without the mediator there’ (Marian). Mediation opens up the possibility for parties to
recognise they have an equal stake in their relationship, a responsibility to influence it, and possess
the tools such as communication, to do so (Frank). Parties, ‘often quite passive up until the moment
the mediation starts’, were given back agency, power over their own destiny (John), at least in part:
‘So, you can use it in a practical sense of empowerment but real empowerment, which I think
goes deeper to a whole sense of personal agency, a whole sense that you can shape and
influence things is how I personally would define it, I'm not sure.’ (Susan)
Empowerment occurs in conjunction with recognition. Mediation enables ‘each party to understand
and represent his or her own position, wants and needs whilst at the same time recognising that the
other person may have wants and needs’ (Tim). Recognition is the break through moment in
mediation:
‘… When they both individually recognise the worth of the other person… that's
empowering… A lot of the time, the people in mediation are in dispute because they feel
undervalued and they feel they've not been recognised… a simple recognition can be quite
empowering'. (Michael)
5.6 Mediator Power
Do mediators exercise power in the performance of their roles? Taxed with this question, some
interviewees expressed surprise and discomfort: ‘I don't see mediators as powerful’ (Anna). Others, a
majority, readily agreed however; mediator power was undoubtable (Tim), not to be
underestimated (Nicola), and huge (Diane). This difference in response reflects a balancing act that
mediators perform, utilising power for the purposes of mediation but also projecting a collaborative
power-with environment.
It is important in discussing power to recognise that mediators are granted power by the parties.
Parties enter the process with little appreciation of what mediation entails, ‘they've normally never
been through anything like this, they're anxious, they're concerned’ (Angela), whereas mediators are
trained and experienced (Carolyn), relative experts in the process (David). Parties accept that in the
99
construction and maintenance of a safe space, control is ceded to the mediator: ‘They're looking to
you as a mediator to control all that for them, make it safe, make it OK to say certain things’
(Angela). Parties look to mediators to provide a structure or framework that creates this safe space,
‘to give a framework, reassurance to the parties about what's going to happen, to ensure that within
that control of the process both parties are given some equity in terms of their ability to contribute’
(Nicola).
Within this framework, mediators exercise power in the choices they make. Mediators decide on
how the room is laid out (Erica), lead the meeting (Sarah), decide if a joint meeting should take place
(Diane), and set ground rules (Carolyn). Where discussions are not making progress (Rose), rooted in
the past or veering off track (Frank), mediators may step in to steer the conversation (Erica). Such
interventions are intrusive, impacting on how an interaction unfolds but represent a motivation to
maintain a structure – ‘a firm scaffolding’ (Frank) – that provides parties with a ‘firm footing so that
they can say what they need to say without fear of it becoming a difficult, damaging experience for
them’ (Frank). Mediator power is not static; it evolves during mediation. Where parties are able to
utilise the safe space afforded them and interact with each other in a power-with orientation
mediators can step back:
‘I think the mediation works best when the role of the mediator diminishes throughout the
course of the meeting’ (Frank)
‘I've talked for five minutes... at the start of the mediation…then slowly almost retreated
from the situation… It was almost as if I wasn't in the room... as if they'd forgotten that I was
in the room’ (Michael)
University mediators were uncomfortable to be seen to exercise power; they recognised that power
can be abused (Tim) and must be used cautiously (Nicola). Mediators therefore took steps to ‘de-
escalate power’ (Tim), redefining its use in support of the mediation process and seeking to
‘minimise their presence’ (Erica). This was done by asserting their role as facilitators (Tim),
independent of management (Carolyn) and with no power to make decisions. The assertion is in the
context of the core principles of mediation and integrated into explanations of the process that
parties are entering into; ‘power then just becomes about guarding of the process, and making sure
that they are getting the chance to talk to each other’ (Angela).
Mitigation and diminution of mediator power is reinforced by how mediators perform their roles.
Simple acts by the mediator can project a shared status with the parties, for instance by serving the
parties tea, or maybe talking about ‘last night's Corrie (a popular TV soap)’ (Angela). Mediators build
100
trust and rapport with the parties by offering themselves as process experts. During mediation
however, there may be times when mediators do not ‘know exactly what we're doing’ and project a
vulnerability that lowers the power differential between mediator and parties (Lynda).
5.6.1 Reframing
Reframing was a micro practice that several interviewees mentioned. It operated at two levels:
helping parties to effectively communicate their perspective and seeking to help them change their
perspective: ‘It’s my role to help somebody to see something from a different perspective’ (Angela).
Reframing involved mediators making a judgement as to the impact of a statement made by one
party on the other. Where this is deemed negative, mediators intervened and ‘reflect it back but
slightly adjust the sentence’ (Rose), inviting the speaker to reconsider their words and or
perspective: ‘we would use reframing to make it a bit more palatable for the other person to hear’
(Sarah). When mediators assessed that the other side had not understood, they were reframing
what had been said so that they ‘will get a better understanding’ (Rose).
Reframing can involve substantial changes in what the parties have said, ‘being able to say things
beyond what the parties themselves had said’ (Erica), enabling the mediator to ‘recast some of the
points that they were making and perhaps put a different spin on what might have been meant
(Angela). In using reframing, mediators do not intend to change meaning, but rather refocus a
statement, for instance changing a demand into a request: 'you're [not] saying this annoys you but
rather that party B does such and such instead', communicating something in a way that the other
party will find more palatable (David).
Mediators considered reframing as a ‘way of helping people understand and engage in conversation’
(David), but it clearly involves the exercise of mediator power. This though was considered
legitimate: ‘I think it reflects a responsible use of power by the mediator in terms of continuing the
conversation and making the mediation effective’ (David).
5.6.2 Neutrality
Neutrality underpins mediator power by creating legitimacy for a mediator’s role and their actions
within the process; mediators ‘must assert neutrality, because they believe it to be important and
because the legitimacy of mediation depends on it’ (Astor, 2007). Indeed, university mediators
endeavoured to project neutrality, to ‘be as neutral as possible’ (Michael). But how did mediators
perform neutrality? A common approach was to treat each party equally. Ground rules were set that
promote a power balance between the parties and then enforced even-handedly: ‘they can see that
we are being very consistent and we've reiterated what we've said and we stick to it’ (Anna). Balance
101
in communication was emphasised, ‘being very much aware of ensuring both parties have sufficient
time to talk, that somebody isn't talking over the other person’ (Michael).
Mediators were conscious, however, that they are never entirely neutral; not ‘blank sheets’ (Ciara).
They recognise that they are never far from opinions, ‘because that's human nature… as human
beings, we can't ignore them completely’ (Rose); personal values come into play when judgments
must be made, and ‘it's almost impossible to take your personal values out of that’ (Diane). They
need to interpret what is playing out in mediation and decide on the next intervention. To move
matters forward, mediators may shade neutrality in their response to parties by putting ‘a little bit of
something around it’ (Angela). Even enforcing ground rules requires a judgement as to when to act,
how significant an infraction needs to be observed before intervention. Mediators therefore have a
dilemma; they espouse neutrality but, being human, they inevitably influence the interaction. How
they resolve this dilemma sheds light on the identity and positioning as mediators.
The responses of three interviewees illustrated distinct approaches to positioning: As judges,
facilitators and interactionists. Judges see themselves as objective observers sat back somewhat
from interaction. For example, Tim described his style as ‘objective but sympathetic’, further
explaining ‘it’s that standing back that I try to bring to bear’ and referring to his experience of acting
as a magistrate. In contrast, facilitators see themselves in the stream of the interaction but seek to
minimise their impact: ‘Observing something you'll influence it, you'll change it. It's about trying to
minimise the impact of that’ (Michael). When neutrality is threatened facilitators will act, but do so
in ways that downplay the mediator’s role. For instance, one of the parties may seek to undermine
neutrality by trying to win over the mediator and engage directly with them to the exclusion of the
other party. When mediators recognised this, they deflected attention from themselves and
redirected the parties, ‘getting that individual to talk directly to the other person’ (Michael), thereby
reaffirming the primacy of the interaction between the parties.
For interactionists like Frank, the mediator is fully engaged, responding to ‘what's in front of me but
actually with the aim of creating some equality there’. Neutrality need not mean treating each party
in exactly the same manner, indeed it may mean ‘more encouragement for one party than the other’
(Frank). This is because the mediator is trying to develop a ‘meaningful relationship with both parties
based on how they respond’; to do otherwise is to be robotic rather than natural in communication.
Where parties are not ‘starting in the same place in terms of confidence’ the mediator may need to
be a ‘little bit partial to get people to the same place’ but must nonetheless not ‘lose the confidence
of the other party’ (Frank).
102
5.7 Mediator Control
Control was a metaphor commonly utilised by mediators as they described their practice. Often
expressed in the formulation, ‘mediators are in control of the process but (parties) are in control of
the content’ (Nicola), it has a range of meanings. These reflect how mediators respond to interaction
but also how mediators project themselves in interaction. When used with the parties, control is
intended to convey a reassurance that mediation is a safe, structured space. Describing parties as
being in control of content emphasises self-determination and seeks to qualify mediator power. This
definition of control enables the mediator to convey their role as a guide and facilitator (Anna).
Mediators are not ‘control freaks’ (Nicola) with a rigid inflexible grip on the process. Rather, they
provide structure and support to the process (Nicola). They intervene to create the conditions where
conversation can flow and thereafter endeavour to step back. In extremis however, when flow is not
possible, mediators may intervene strongly, becoming directive: ‘David and I agreed that we were
going to control them very tightly’ (Angela). At this juncture, control may stray over into areas of
content, ‘Interrupting regularly, challenging a lot of the points that came out, so, 'Is this relevant?
Does this relate to mediation? Is this to do with your relationship?’ (David). Mediators may move
from facilitative to directive:
‘In the way that I would seek to respond to the situation, there could be times when you feel
it is very facilitative because the parties are engaged and they are able to go with the flow.
There are times when it might need to be more directive or prescriptive or times, for me it's
got to be flexible depending on the response you're getting from the parties’ (Nicola)
Mediator control is therefore a term which expresses a tension between letting an interaction flow
and intervening when flow is threatened. Mediators hope that parties can make the most of the
opportunity that mediation affords. However, mediators acknowledge the fear or realisation that
patterns established in prior conflict will re-emerge. For an example of how mediators handle this
tension the researcher asked interviewees to consider a particular micro practice, the decision as to
which of the parties speaks first in the joint meeting, a variant of the question, ‘which of you would
like to listen first?’ (Littlejohn and Domenici, 2006: 244)
Once mediators introduced the joint meeting of the parties, each party was given an opportunity to
speak without interruption for around five minutes. One party will clearly speak first, but how is this
decision to be made; by the mediator or by the parties? And what are the implications of this choice
for control? If mediators cede the choice to the parties, they risk undermining confidence in
mediator control: ‘Those individuals would be quite surprised because they anticipate our job would
103
be to make those decisions and to guide them through the process of mediation’ (Sarah). The weaker
party, the ‘person who's less articulate, less confident, who I think you do offer a degree of protection
to’ (Angela), may be disadvantaged by leaving the choice to the parties. Being pre-empted from
speaking first may induce the thought ‘I would have liked to have gone first and I've been forced to
go second by my antagonist as it were’ (Tim). Party choice may be risky; ‘At the Acas training they
said, 'the first potential piece of conflict you might experience is that neither party will talk or they
will both talk at once. So it was recommended that you identify who should go first’ (Rachel).
Consequently, many mediators relied on convention and chose the party who had requested
mediation or raised the issue, the ‘complainant’. This may be on pragmatic grounds, ‘because they
know why we're here in the first place’ (John). Or instinct, ‘it feels like the right thing to do’ (Penny).
Or it may be something learned in initial training but only with certain providers: ‘I think this is part
of their CMP training... I don't recall it from my TCM stuff’. A problem however, arises with mediator
control of the decision in the need to be seen to act fairly and some universities have adopted a
method which may be seen as outside of a mediator’s control. One university chooses alphabetically
by the first name of the parties, an arrangement agreed ‘when we all finished training’ (Anna).
Another, ‘whoever did the solo set first speaks second, that's the TCM guideline’ (Tim).
However, selecting a party to speak was uncomfortable for some mediators: ‘I don't want to be seen
in that situation where I might be siding with somebody by directing them to talk first about the
situation’ (Michael). Consequently, the alternative was to let the parties choose (Carolyn). A quiet
invitation from the mediator and ‘they will look at each other and they will have a bit of whether it's
non-verbal or otherwise, there'll be something where there's almost an agreement and then one
person will start talking’ (Michael). To cede control to the parties positions the mediator in a
different power relationship to the parties; ‘It’s quite levelling’ (John), ‘obviously giving the power to
them straight away. They're leading it from the start ‘(Marian).
Mediators were therefore faced with a dilemma in this micro-practice. Do they err on the side of
control, seek to condition the parties to a power-with dynamic or utilise a hybrid of these
approaches, ‘based on what you've heard in the individual meetings and then you make a choice
between whether it's your choice or their choice’ (Frank)? The choices they made illuminate how
they wanted to set up power relations and position themselves as mediators.
104
5.8 Summary
Reading any analysis of power reveals as much about the perspective of the analyst as it does of the
situation being analysed. Classically, there has been a debate between those viewing power as
residing in structure and those emphasising agency, followed subsequently by the theorising of an
interaction of the two in structuration (Craib, 2011). Those mediators interviewed in this research
were not vested in this debate and drew little, if at all, on theoretical constructs of power in their
practice. Nonetheless, their commentary on power points to an engagement with power in both its
structural and its relational or agency aspects. Mediation becomes a temporary space for agency and
relational repair before parties return to their workplace.
University mediators clearly recognised that power, most prominently in the guise of hierarchy, is an
important factor to consider and address within mediation by modulating power in ground rules and
the creation of a safe space. Parties enter mediation with a footprint of power relationships in the
context of their workplace, and mediators must act to reset the power dynamic; the prerogative of
management to instruct is subsumed within the interaction of two individuals. Thereafter, mediators
view the temporary bubble of mediation as an incubator where power is relational; an interpersonal
phenomenon (Dennis and Martin, 2005). Mediators endeavour to promote a power-with orientation
for the interaction by monitoring and responding to the parties, creating an opportunity for the
parties to experience better communication and recast their relationship.
Treating mediation as a locus for interactive participation (Kelly, 1995) leads mediators to view
empowerment, a restoration of agency for each of the parties, as an important by-product of the
process. Empowerment is seen to be predicated on the achievement of recognition, the mutual
appreciation of the perspective and needs of the other party, thus echoing the goals of the
transformative model. However, what distinguishes practice in university workplace mediation from
the transformative model is the degree and means with which these mediators exercise power and
control. This point is developed further in Chapter 8.
Mediators exercised power in response to interaction, i.e. what they needed to do to set and sustain
mediation on track; they were driven by the process. Techniques such as reframing and ground rules
were deployed and the degree to which power is exerted was contingent on the functioning of the
interaction. The use of power was considered legitimate in that it supported a well-functioning
interaction. In analysing this aspect of power, one is reminded of a parallel within the discipline of
surface chemistry. Chemical reactions are facilitated by three types of agent: initiators cause a
chemical reaction to start; promoters move that reaction forward, whilst catalysts are required
105
throughout a reaction to sustain yield. Mediators are required to be initiators, setting the conditions
for the modulation of power and a power-with orientation in the interaction. Mediators, thereafter,
seek to minimise their presence but monitor the interaction and provide support where required to
keep the interaction on track; they are promoters. By exception, where interaction goes off track
and the flow of communication is impeded, mediators step in to exert control, and direction, in
support of the process; they become catalysts as an active participant in the reaction.
Mediators also exercised power to position themselves within the interaction in ways which
revealed their identity or disposition. This is illustrated by their enactment of neutrality and their
control, or derogation, of choice of speaker in the joint meeting. Here we can see, in the
explanations provided by three interviewees, the mediator as judge, facilitator or interactionist.
Such an identity may of course be an emergent: this group of mediators was relatively inexperienced
and individuals may have lacked the confidence to run in ways that were contrary to conventional
practice. Mediator control is something learned in basic training and then adapted as mediators
become more confident (Nicola). The more confident the mediator becomes, the more they might
trust and accordingly empower the parties (Nicola).
Mediators are therefore framed by disposition (how they would like to act) and process (how they
need to act). They have an ideal for the exercise of power that provides parties with a power-with
relationship that affords an opportunity for empowerment. Their expectation is that, properly set-
up, the mediation process will provide the conditions for parties to interact in this power
orientation; that initial control can provide sufficient structure for the mediator to fade into the
background. Nonetheless, this is an invitation that parties may be unwilling or unable to take up or
sustain. Under these circumstances mediators may feel obliged to intervene to protect or nurture
flow in the interaction.
In dramaturgical terms, mediators are performers; how they perform their role shapes the parties’
engagement with the process. This chapter shows that mediator performance can be in tension with
the aspiration to enact mediation as a collaborative, power-with process. Ground rules may be
imposed rather than jointly constructed, mediators may decide on who speaks first in the joint
meeting; micro-practices that follow basic training but emphasise mediator control. This tension
represents a dissonance between habitual practice (following the rules) and heedful performance
(responding to the interaction) that is explored further in Chapter 8.
Reflecting on the relative lack of experience as a boundary to a mediator’s expression of identity
returns us to research question 4: in what ways might an explicit understanding of Social Interaction
106
Theory contribute to a mediator developing a consciously integrated, flexible practice? In particular,
how might mediators respond to second- generation mediation models which, unlike the facilitative
model, do not attempt a demarcation between process and content (Douglas, 2008), or to replacing
the principle of neutrality with the practice of reflexivity (Rothman, 2014). This is a topic which will
be returned to and explored further in Chapter 8.
107
Chapter 6 – Co-mediation
6.1 Introduction
Chapters 4, 5, and 7 in this thesis focus on the interaction between the mediator and the parties.
This chapter however, turns the lens onto the interaction between the mediators, exploring both the
potential and the pitfalls of co-mediated practice. Drawing on participant responses to questions in
the semi-structured interview relating to co-mediation (Topic 2 in Appendix 1), this chapter explores
potential sources of tension within the co-mediation partnership and how trust is established and
performed between mediators. In doing so, the findings demonstrate that co-mediation is both a
challenge and an opportunity.
The performance of mediation is contingent on the personal style of the mediator (Kressel and Wall,
2012). We may therefore expect variance across any set of mediators in how mediation is
conducted. Where mediation is led by a single mediator, differences in performance may largely be
hidden from view. The process is private, and parties often have no previous experience of
mediation. For the parties, mediation is what they experience with their mediator and at that time
(Relis, 2005). Individual mediators may be unaware of their individual style and its implications for
practice, without necessarily creating difficulties. However, in many instances mediation is carried
out by pairs of mediators – a practice termed, co-mediation – and this is common in workplace
mediation in British universities (Poyntz, 2012). Style may be unexplored with a single mediator
without risk, but may become problematic when co-mediating. This raises the question, addressed
in this chapter, as to how co-mediation becomes effective given potentially differing personal styles?
The chapter commences by describing the background of co-mediated practice, why universities
typically opt for co-mediation and how the process of workplace mediation is enacted in this setting.
The chapter next turns to mediators’ understanding of personal style, how conflict may arise within
the co-mediated partnership and how mediators seek to handle such conflict. It examines how pairs
are selected for co-mediation and how mediators coordinate tasks and roles, and concludes by
showing that trust is an essential component of effective co-mediation, demonstrating how this
presents an opportunity to prime the parties to respond positively by the performance of trust and
relationship, an echo of a dramaturgical approach (Goffman, 1959) to interaction.
108
6.2 Background
The decision as to sole or co-mediation at any university is influenced by the selection of the training
organisation providing the basic mediator training. Role plays and assessments follow a solo (Acas)
or co-mediated (CMP) format and are a formative experience for the novice mediator and the
fledgling mediation service. Thereafter, the template acquired in initial training is adapted to fit the
circumstances at each university:
‘We've translated the guidance we've taken from the formal training that we've had and
made sense of it in this context… So, there's a study that we've done that's led to a certain
process, procedure that's fitted, we feel anyway, the culture here’ (Frank)
Of the five universities participating beyond Phase in this research, three had employed co-
mediation from the onset whilst one had switched to co-mediation when the mediation service was
re-located within the Human Resources (HR) department to the Learning and Development group.
Most mediators in the four co-mediating institutions had only practised as co-mediators and there
was limited experience of working as an individual in conflict situations. One participant had prior
experience as a sole mediator in the NHS whilst a few had worked solo in what were termed
‘facilitated meetings’. In one university such meetings (an experiment now abandoned) offered a
less formal service – signalled by the use of a single mediator – to engage doubting or reluctant
participants. Finally, one HR participant used the same term to describe utilising mediation skills to
handle conflict in her regular role.
Those universities utilising a co-mediator model were strongly supportive, believing that co-
mediation offers mutual support and the opportunity to learn from each other. This was seen, by
these mediation services, as particularly important when a new or less experienced mediator was
participating: ‘for a relatively inexperienced mediator it is quite a scary thing as well being on your
own’ (Anna). On the other hand, the one university operating an individual mediator model
explained this approach as a means of making the parties feel more comfortable in facing just one
rather than two mediators: to have mediation feel more informal and less like approaching a
tribunal bench. Whilst this set of mediators speculated that co-mediation might be useful in some
circumstances – for instance when working with groups in conflict – they emphasised the merits of
performing their role solo, free of the need to coordinate with a partner.
There is a silo effect between these two sets of university practitioners when it comes to co-
mediation, with a degree of incomprehension of the alternative approach born of limited
experience. Angela however, was able to make a connection between the silos. Describing her
109
transition from sole to co-mediation she echoed the concerns of solo mediators but concluded her
fears had abated once she had gained experience:
‘One of the things I was most concerned about when I heard about co-mediation here was,
“How’s that going to work, there's two of you in the room, who's in charge sort of thing.
Who's the lead on this discussion?” But that concern hasn't come to fruition for me. And,
actually it's been more beneficial than it has been difficult. And the other concern that I had
was that with co-mediation – having two of you in the room – could be quite intimidating for
the parties; being faced with two people rather than one. But again, that doesn't seem to
have been an issue’ (Angela)
Following the template set by training providers, mediation in universities typically takes place over
the course of a single day. Mediators meet with parties individually in the morning for sessions that
run from 45 to 90 minutes each, in which mediators prepare the parties and themselves for the joint
session. Parties and mediators then have time, separately, over lunch for reflection before
convening for the joint session. A joint session, with both parties and the mediator together in a
single room, takes place in the afternoon. This session may include breaks but can be tests of
stamina and concentration lasting for between one-and-a-half and six hours (David). Prior to
meeting the parties, co-mediators convene to assess the case and coordinate their activities. These
meetings take place in the morning of the mediation and may run for ‘an hour or so’ (Diane), where
other duties permit, or be restricted to a half hour squeezed in immediately before the individual
meetings (Rose).
6.3 Understanding Personal Style
Co-mediators need to be able to work together and integrate their individual actions in ways which
are responsive to the parties and the interaction taking place in the mediation. In interview,
mediators emphasised the steps they take to support each other. Nonetheless, frictions do arise.
How does this occur in interaction and how does it relate to personal style?
Mediators analyse the interaction unfolding before them in mediation and, drawing on personal
schema, start to formulate a response, a plan of action or intervention. In the moment, within the
mediation room, on line, this is reflection-in-action, ‘an internal conversation about the process,
tasks and strategies’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000). For the sole mediator it is a challenging enough task to
engage in this conversation whilst attending to the parties. For the co-mediation team, this task is
compounded by the need to coordinate with their partner and conflict can arise between mediators.
110
For instance, if one mediator is taking the lead and decides on allowing a silence, tension may arise if
this intervention is not respected by their partner (Michael).
As issues emerge within mediation, a choice must be made as to which to pursue and in what order.
This requires coordination between the mediators and relies on them ‘sharing similar interpretations
of situations as well as the attendant rules for sequencing action’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 506).
Mediators may, however, differ in their individual formulations and feel strongly that a particular
strategy is appropriate at any given moment.
‘… there have been times where I definitely would have gone in a direction or felt that
momentum was building in a positive direction that's then gone, been taken off somewhere
else’ (Erica)
For the dissenting mediator, there is the possibility to assert their position as this juncture. However,
this presents a risk of undermining the partnership, and interviewees preferred instead to hold open
the possibility of subsequently winding back the interaction: ‘…at some point I would intervene and
maybe pull back to another question and say, “well actually we were talking about this”' (David).
How the frictions that arise are managed is contingent on the level of trust built up in the
relationship. If trust is high, then reflection-in-action is possible. If not, mediators have the option to
take a break and engage in reflection-on-action, offline and in the absence of the parties.
Beyond formulation, mediators have preferences that derive from personal schema, as to how they
interact with the parties. A fault line with the potential to divide mediators and raised by
interviewees was that of structure: as a mediator do you let the conversation flow, or do you take a
more structured approach?
‘…if it was somebody like me who really likes to let the conversation flow and interrupt as
little as possible as a general principle, against somebody who's very, very structured and
likes to really manage the conversation very tightly, then I guess there could be more of a
conflict’ (David)
‘I've approached it more or less as I would for recruitment interviewing which is normally not
that structured’ (John)
The starting point on structure is the drill that trainees receive in basic training. However, attitudes
to structure change over time with experience and mediators develop a practice consonant with
their own personal style:
111
‘I think I became slightly more relaxed about structure initially much more focused upon the
conversation. You know there are people that I mediate with that are very, very concerned
about the structure’ (Erica)
A cautionary note should, however, be made regarding structure and preference. A less structured
approach allowing conversation to flow may be the desired approach of the mediators, but
circumstances may dictate otherwise. Angela and David, two mediators who were working together
for the first time, reported starting their mediation with a less structured approach but found the
joint meeting spiralling out of control. In response they called a break, agreed to control the
conversation and content tightly and restarted the mediation with a further caucus session.
How do mediators understand personal style? Most of the mediators interviewed had shared a
common experience of basic training which facilitated the formation of co-mediator teams. It is here
that an appreciation of personal style forms. In training, mediators are taught the component skills
of mediation such as listening, summarising, and questioning. This is done within a framework which
for these universities was the facilitative model of mediation. Skills are then embedded in the
practice of the trainee by playing the role as a co-mediator in simulated disputes. Such role play
enables mediators to begin the exploration of personal style and fit with fellow mediators:
‘… When I observed her in the training it was clear that we were coming from the same
place. So, I knew, I knew her style, as it were, it matched with mine. So, I think we were quite
a good match in that sense…during the five days you get to know them, you get to know
their characters, and you get to know their approach’ (Carolyn)
Mediators also learn that styles can differ and that it is important to recognise and work with such
differences so that they feel comfortable with their fellow mediator (Sarah). Difference is something
that was explicitly valued (Lynda) as bringing something extra to the co-mediation team, a different
perspective (Carolyn), a novel question (Nicola), standpoints and experience (Tim) or
complementary skills (David). However, this conceptualisation of style is superficial; it encompasses
the recognition that mediators practice in different ways but the connection with personal schema is
unexplored, a matter of tacit knowledge. This can lead to an expectation that style differences can
and should be resolved prior to mediation: ‘the key is to sort those things out before you go into a
mediation situation because otherwise you end up looking rather stupid’ (Carolyn). However, if
personal style is a complex construct based in personal schema and largely hidden from the
individual (Kressel, 2013) this may be unrealistic. Exploring personal style is perhaps a journey that
112
merely commences in basic training. Much remains to be discovered by experience and a process of
reflexivity. As Erica noted:
‘I'm not sure any of us are really developed or self-aware enough to be able to say, “This is
my style, this is how I like to be in the room” upfront’ (Erica)
6.4 Organising Teamwork
If mediators lack insight into personal style, they are at least clearer on the on the need to divide
tasks within the team: ‘who's going to do what and what roles you're going to take beforehand,
that's really important’ (Angela). In training, mediators learn a script of tasks, a step programme that
guides them through responsibilities such as setting ground rules and explaining confidentiality:
‘…when you do your training, you're given a set structure to follow ’ (Angela). This structure provides
the mediator with an order and a check list of tasks that can be assigned in their preparatory
meeting. This allocation is explicit: ‘You can do the housekeeping for party B and vice versa. So, we
divide that upfront’ (Erica) and sometimes in considerable detail: ‘we'll tend to colour code it or put
an issues list so that certain people lead on certain things’ (David). The agreement on a division of
tasks and the articulation of roles in advance are particularly helpful where a pairing is new or where
one or both mediators are inexperienced. It reduces the fear of the unfamiliar:
‘With a newer mediator, if I was to throw an odd question out or take it in a slightly different
direction they might not have a clue about what I'm trying or where I'm going with this, so
they might start floundering and it wouldn't be fair not bringing them along’ (Diane)
With experience, the allocation of tasks can be implied and unconscious: ‘it's smooth enough that
you're almost unconscious that you have actually come to an order’ (Penny). There is a sense that a
‘comfortable pattern’ (Rose) emerges without a clear understanding as to how this is accomplished.
‘We’ve just got into a pattern really. It's quite difficult to put your finger on it. But I think
once you get under way with the mediation you fall into a pattern’ (Angela)
However, some experienced teams still take the time to explicitly discuss relative individual
strengths and distribute roles accordingly. And, recognising the need to adapt during the mediation
there is, critically, agreement on ‘how are we going to communicate with each other during the
mediation’ (Lynda).
Tasks can be planned in advance for the early, more structured part of mediation, ‘… until you get to
that fairly open part of mediation that works fairly well; you know exactly what we're going to be
doing’ (David). However, beyond these standard steps, the process is unpredictable, obliging the
113
mediators to improvise their interventions and teamwork. The advent of this open, fluid phase of
mediation is outwith the mediator’s control as parties respond in unexpected ways, and planned
interventions can evoke unexpected responses. In one case, mediators had agreed the normal steps
to coax participation from a party only to find the party ‘just galloped away and gave us so much
without being prompted’ (Carolyn). This fluid phase is a particular challenge in co-mediation: how
does the partnership recognise the need to adapt? If the partners are mismatched in experience,
how does the experienced mediator ‘bring along’ their partner?
One method for handling uncertainty was to designate responsibility for leading. One mediator is
active, leading the mediation, and the other supporting, with these roles being shuttled between the
mediators to underline partnership. This arrangement can be quite structured where the active
mediator engages directly with the party (or parties) whilst their co-mediator takes notes. This
taking of notes in mediation is instructive from an epistemological perspective as it projects the
mediator as an objective observer of the interaction; the mediator as a gatherer of evidence rather
than engaging in the interaction. This was explained as a prompt ‘to make sure you’ve picked
everything up’ (Rose) but clearly captures what is important to the mediator and not necessarily the
parties.
In principle, as discussed below, co-mediation is projected as a partnership of equals. However, this
may need adjustment in practice where experience levels are markedly different. Here a leader-
follower approach may be adopted. The less experienced mediator leads in the structured part of
the mediation with the experienced mediator providing a guiding hand and responsiveness to the
unfolding interaction:
‘I would let the newbie do the ground rules bit and they tend to be very meticulous about
that and have the check list of things to go through. And that's quite valuable; I've probably
forgotten a couple of them by now. So, they would tend to hug the structure more and I
would add some professional expertise and some ability to think on my feet during the
session’ (John)
6.5 Trust in Co-mediated Teams
When service coordinators need to schedule a case for mediation, an open call would be issued
across the mediator pool to establish the availability to undertake the case. Mediators trust
coordinators to use their ‘judgement on how people have worked together in the past’ (Diane) in
matching them. For the coordinators there is an ideal balance in terms of gender, experience and
possibly race between the mediators. Mediators who have any working relationship within the
114
department in question or either party are excluded to preserve impartiality. More particularly,
where both parties to a dispute are academics, there is a perceived need to field mediators of a
similar background for credibility. Nonetheless, what might be ideal is constrained by those who are
able and willing to make themselves available. In one institution, this has led to regular volunteers
(Penny and John) undertaking many of the cases and consequently establishing an experienced
partnership. Regular partnerships may also emanate from mainstream roles. For Lynda and Tim,
their co-mediation is an extension of the working alliance forged in their main role operating
together as coaches.
These experienced teams both talked of trust as an essential component: ‘We trust each other
implicitly’ (Penny), ‘I think there has to be trust between the two mediators’ (Tim). But what is meant
by trust and how does this operate for less experienced teams? A study of temporary high
performance teams, segmented trust into two components; role and relational trust (Moldjord and
Iversen, 2015). Role trust is cognitive and relies on the training and expertise of one’s partners. For
John and Penny, role trust was expressed as a confidence in the capability of one’s partner to
perform their role and complement one’s own: ‘… if possible I try to mediate with John because
characteristically we're very different and we as a result balance each other out’ (Penny).
Expectations and stereotypes from other roles are the key ingredients of role trust, and mediators
make the implicit assumption that basic training provides the necessary common set of
expectations; that my partner will do what I’ve been taught (Sarah). Once role trust is established,
surface level cues enable tasks to be undertaken within the partnership:
‘And then just taking cues from people, so taking cues from each other, knowing it was a
colleague, so I know her, in terms of knowing when one of us might want to ask a question’
(Marian)
Relational trust is affective and takes longer to develop. For John and Penny, this is evidenced by
their willingness to challenge each other and mutual permission to ‘manage each other’ (Penny); a
confidence to let either mediator lead or intervene. What characterises relational trust is
vulnerability, ‘the affect-based experience of team members where positive interactions, stable
patterns, openness and good intentions foster a high degree of confidence and care in the relations’
(Moldjord and Iversen, 2015: 232). This is fostered by reflective practice, both in-action and on-
action.
Role trust is based on expectations whereas relational trust is rooted in vulnerability. The role
playing carried out in basic training is a step towards exploring vulnerability: ‘training together and
115
seeing each other's vulnerability because obviously we did various things in front of and acted and
we all disliked it’ (Anna). Nonetheless, absent acquiring experience in actual mediations,
inexperienced pairs must rely to a greater degree on role trust, the set of expectations formed in
basic training:
‘…if you don't know each other, you have to rely more on the process… when you don't have
the trust, when you don't have the experience you have no option but to rely a little bit more
on the mediation process’ (Lynda)
Mediators are sensitive to the potential for differing expectations where they have not shared basic
training but, as exemplified by David and Angela, this need not be problematic for forging an
effective partnership. The danger lies at the other extreme, assuming a common set of expectations
and then discovering otherwise mid mediation. As Diane remarked of one troubled co-mediation:
‘[It was] my fault for having presumed the way I'd worked with other people would be the way we
worked together as well’ (Diane).
6.6 Co-mediation as Social Interaction
One lens that can be applied to the analysis of mediation is dramaturgical (Goffman, 1959; Jarrett,
2012), examining how parties in an interaction perform and how they maintain and adapt face. Most
obviously, parties in mediation perform with the mediator present to assist them preparing (back
stage) in initial meetings and enacting (front stage) their performance before the other party in joint
session. However, mediators can also be seen as part of the interaction and enacting their own
performance. When co-mediation is practised, there is an opportunity for an extended performance
from the two-actor mediation team. The object of such a performance is to project aspects of co-
mediation in ways which elicit a helpful response from the parties and supports the mediation
process. Mediators may articulate this as modelling for the parties:
‘Because you’re modelling something, demonstrating something to the parties; showing that
vulnerability in a place where you can be vulnerable and open is important’ (Lynda)
Analysing their accounts of co-mediation, three main areas of performance were apparent;
collaboration, difference and vulnerability. Mediation is a collaborative process (Goldberg and Shaw,
2010; Winslade, Monk, and Cotter, 1998; Hedeen, Raines, and Barton, 2010) and there is an
importance in mediators demonstrating their ability to work together effectively as a team.
Underpinning this, mediators seek to project a partnership of equals even when it may be clear to
them, and possibly the parties, that levels of experience may be significantly different:
116
‘… the impression I would want to give to the individuals would be that [a co-equal
partnership] but I wouldn't see it myself as that. I would be looking to learn from them really’
(Sarah)
‘working together well does work and it enables the whole environment to be more
collaborative... it invites the parties then into that discussion and it all becomes a lot more
equal in terms of what's going on in the room at a particular time’ (Diane)
Difference between the parties, in behaviour or beliefs, is a potential cause of conflict (Coleman,
Kugler, Bui-Wrzosinska, Nowak, and Vallacher, 2012) but provides the co-mediated pair with an
opportunity. When mediators can be seen as individuals yet working as a pair they perform
difference to the parties as a positive way of handling conflict and recognising alternative
perspectives:
‘We want the participants to see us working as a pair. We want them to see working as a
pair, as a very fruitful endeavour’ (Lynda)
Finally, the performance of co-mediation does not have to be perfect; in fact, blemishes are a good
opportunity to model the positive management of conflict for the parties. An aspect of this type of
modelling raised in the interviews was that of vulnerability; being open and accountable to the
mediator you are working alongside. Mediators recognise that enabling parties to move away from
entrenched positions is an invitation to enter a different space and become vulnerable with each
other:
‘We're getting people to feel more comfortable with feeling vulnerable with each other. And
therefore being able to recognise their own vulnerability… Vulnerability increased the
relationship, the effective communication between those two people’ (Ciara)
Recognising the vulnerability of the parties, interviewees spoke of creating a safe space. This is done
by emphasising confidentiality, impartiality and building rapport, particularly in the initial sessions.
However, co-mediators can do more than help create conditions; they can perform vulnerability.
Vulnerability becomes something shared in the interaction with the parties rather than created for
them (Ciara) and a demonstration of relational trust. A telling example of vulnerability in practice
was provided by Diane when discussing how to decide on a potentially sensitive intervention:
‘If it is working well, speak openly in the room with your co-mediator and the parties…If it’s
not, take a break. Is the space safe for transparency…? That can be because I'm not sure how
117
the mediator will respond to what I've got to say or because what I think we should do next
might be particularly challenging for one or both of the parties’ (Diane)
For Diane, if relational trust is high with her fellow mediator, the internal conversation characteristic
of reflection-in-action can be externalised, it is safe to be vulnerable. If relational trust is low and the
space not safe for transparency, then a break is called enabling reflection-on-action to take place,
backstage in the absence of the parties. For experienced partnerships such as Linda and Tim,
vulnerability is the norm:
‘If we're not sure we'll ask each other in front of the participants...we'll be quite open about
how we approach this’ (Lynda)
The performance of relational trust is an invitation to the parties to respond in kind. Demonstrating
vulnerability signals mediation to be a safe place where parties can explore possibilities rather than
defend positions. Co-mediation – in providing two mediator actors – offers the enhanced
opportunity for dramaturgical performance that is denied to the solo mediator.
6.7 Summary
The analysis presented above has addressed a number of interrelated themes. Firstly, there is the
role of the mediator group at each university as a community of practice (COP), which can be a
cradle of learning but also a cage, with conformity restricting growth (Wenger, 2000). On the
evidence of these interviews, the groups at each university were developing competent mediators
and effective co-mediated partnerships. On the other hand they were restrictive of personal
development in two aspects: the concept of personal style was largely unexplored and individual
development was constrained by the practice of co-mediation.
The literature observes that personal style is unexplored (Kressel, Henderson, Reich, and Cohen,
2012) and so it should not be surprising to see the effect confirmed in this research. Arguably,
understanding personal style is important for the individual but also in terms of building relational
trust within co-mediation. Tacit knowledge of personal style is clearly difficult for practitioners to
describe but may be accessed by ‘observation and reflection devoted to that purpose’ (Schön, 1995:
34).
The potential for co-mediation to cramp personal development arises as mediators gain experience
and attempt to move beyond basic competence. This may be expressed as a willingness or desire to
fly solo: ‘I go backwards and forwards with it [co-mediation] as a model for myself personally. I'm
certainly not wedded to it. I sometimes wonder whether it's just somebody extra in the room to have
118
to attend to’ (Erica). More practically, this may be seen as a constraint imposed by the need for a
degree of uniformity across the COP at each university: ‘If I go away and really develop my strengths
in the transformative model, I can't apply that very effectively if my co-mediator hasn't done the
same’ (David).
Secondly, co-mediation provides an opportunity for performance. In particular, the potential for
demonstrating relational trust imbues co-mediation with distinct advantages over sole mediation.
This would seem particularly important where the context of mediation in the university workplace
is relational rather than transactional, in contrast to what is arguably the case in a commercial
mediation. However, one university in this research has elected for solo mediation, raising the
question as to how a sole mediator seeks to compensate, and to project trust and vulnerability.
Thirdly, what indications are there that a co-mediated partnership is effective and achieving its full
potential? One suggested measure is ‘flow’, the ‘ultimate expression of artistry’: a state where ‘all
aspects of the interaction are combining synergistically’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 230). It comes when
co-mediators are immersed in discourse (heedful practice), demonstrating relational trust,
particularly in vulnerability, and are being responsive to reflection-in-action:
‘… flow is the word you come to after you've had the feeling… I've watched all the little
interactions, I'm fine tuning everything that feels about right and I'm almost not having to
spend too much time thinking about it because it's got itself in its groove’ (Lynda)
Finally, role trust would appear to be a prerequisite for each mediator, an essential step for co-
mediators which basic training drills into trainees creating collective understanding. However, as the
analysis of their responses to the questionnaire revealed in Chapter 4, understanding of the goals
and objectives of mediation is not always common across the community and changes with
experience. For the new mediator, role trust is founded in habitual practice and developed by
reflective exercises. In contrast, relational trust is found in (positive) experiences and heedful
performance and developed by reflexive exercises.
119
Chapter 7 – Mediator Practice and its Intersection with Theory
7.1 Introduction
A widely held proposition in mediation literature is that theory and practice are intertwined. Theory
is said to be embedded in the basic training undertaken by aspirant mediators (Macfarlane and
Mayer, 2005) and to provide the concepts, propositions and relationships that underpin mediator
techniques and mediation models (Zariski, 2010). More broadly, theory informs how professionals
act and, in turn, the experience of practice leads, via experimentation and reflection, to the
development of a personal theory of practice (Argyris and Schön, 1974; Susskind, 2015).
Nonetheless, reference to theory in training is extremely limited and either implicit or unsourced
(Macfarlane and Mayer, 2005). Moreover, research suggests only broad ideas and not specifics are
retained by trainees when they come to practice (Goldstein et al., 2008).
Recruits approaching basic mediation training are not clean slates; they bring their own ‘unique and
implicit ‘theory of practice’ for resolving conflicts’ (Raider, Coleman and Gerson, 2006: 695). This
suggests two sources of theory for mediators: that provided in the context of mediation, primarily in
basic training, and theory acquired in other contexts and potentially applied in mediation as lay
theory (Zariski, 2010).
How mediators engage with theory and make sense of it in practice is influenced by their personal
schema; the values, implicit theory and goals that inform and guide each individual (Kressel, 2013).
How mediators choose to intervene at any moment in time draws on an overarching meta-theory,
the philosophy that guides mediator choice (Lieberman, et al, 2005); partly a matter of unarticulated
choice and partly embedded in the practice model (Zariski, 2010). Practitioners are said to enact
their worldviews – albeit unconsciously – when deciding on what is important, relying on ontology
and epistemology (Goldberg, 2009: 427).
A mediator’s connection with theory determines the tools, methods and techniques that are
available for them to draw on in practice, whereas their connection with meta-theory determines
the motivation for intervention. For example, empathy is a theoretically well-supported mediator
behaviour (Della Noce, 1999; Hedeen, Raines and Barton, 2010; Bollen and Euwema, 2013), but does
it emanate from a transactional focus on smoothing the path to settlement or a relational expression
of deeper curiosity (Kressel, 2013: 724)? Accessing the meta-theory of any one mediator is difficult,
potentially hidden from the individual him or herself. However, if meta-theory drives decision
making, then potentially reversing this order, examining the choice of techniques and exploring the
underlying rationale for their use may shed light on the individual’s meta-theory.
120
This chapter looks at mediator practices at both a macro and micro level and a metaphor they
commonly use to describe practice to shed light on their guiding meta-theory. It examines how
university mediators acquire and develop their personal theories, move from simple to complex
schema (Kressel, 2013) and create their own integrated practice.
7.2 Mediator Identity – a sense of self in the room
What – or rather whom – do mediators bring to the room when they practice? Interviewees were
invited to describe their background and motivation to volunteer as mediators. In addition, they
were asked about the extent to which their values influenced their practice.
Values and experience shape a mediator’s personal schema (Kressel, 2013)and form part of their
identity, their conception of self in the room. All but one of the participants had completed higher
education or undertaken a professional route equivalent. Of these, six had studied Human Resources
(HR) Management or the CIPD equivalent and six had studied courses that had significant elements
of psychology and or sociology. The main role performed by these mediators (the ‘day job’) fell into
one of three areas: Human Resources (HR), Learning & Development (also known as Organisational
Development and often a subgrouping within HR) and then an eclectic mix including a lecturer and
three administrators.
Whilst all of those interviewed expressed a professional identity in their main role, there was a
particular resonance in mediation for those (12) with HR roles. Here, values were unconsciously
interwoven across mediation and non-mediation roles; ‘I haven't really consciously thought about it
a great deal... it's quite tangled up with my professional life as well.’ (John). This arises from the
perceived interaction between mediation and their mainstream role; mediation becomes an
expression of a desire to help people work together (Anna). For those working in general HR, the
acquisition of mediation skills was seen as aiding the performance of their regular role; almost an
organisational expectation that competency in mediation is professionally required; ‘a lot of the HR
managers are trained mediators… it's relevant to the job that we do’ (Sarah). For those in coaching,
mediation was seen as a natural progression; ‘… prior to that I had the best part of thirty years
practice as a team builder coach and occupational psychologist. So, I feel a lot of my background
plays into the mediation world’ (Tim).
Nonetheless mediators bring a personal, in addition to a professional, identity into the room: ‘all the
values that you have, you absolutely bring into the room…parents, upbringing, school, friends, family,
personal experience…, all of those things’ (Angela). Moreover, the professional and personal are
intertwined: ‘my values led me into certain professions probably and I've been in these sorts of
121
professions throughout my working life... around social justice and social exclusion’ (Lynda).
The opportunity for personal growth attracts university mediators to volunteer. This can be in
pursuit of a personal interest; ‘in human behaviour and psychology and its manifestation in the
workplace’ (Michael), or arise from the recognition, by themselves, colleagues or managers, that
they possessed a key skill such as listening (Erica, Anna, Angela and Diane) and that mediation
represented an opportunity to develop these skills.
Interviewees related how previous negative experiences were important in framing their attitudes to
conflict and mediation. Two interviewees spoke of events in childhood. For Carolyn, conflict came to
be something to avoid. For Erica, it was an opportunity to develop effective coping strategies: ‘my
dad used to call me a diplomat’ (Erica). A further two had experienced organisational conflict and
had led an initiative to find a more effective way of handling conflict (Penny), ‘a less procedural way
of having conversations…a safe way to just sit and talk’ (Diane), which subsequently led to the
adoption of mediation.
Mediators expressed values that revealed their views of human needs and frailty. These framed
their expectations of the people they would encounter in mediation. Good relationships,
communications and peace were important (Erica). People want to be loved, accepted and listened
to (Carolyn). Individuals need to feel they and their contribution are recognised (Michael). People
are valuable, they should be respected and respectful (Tim). People were seen as basically good but
struggling in conflict; the mediator privileged to work alongside those in need:
‘I trust everybody till they let me down, it's those sort of beliefs in the good in people, I
believe that everybody’s got, they're doing the best they can with what they've got is where I
come from… there are not many bad people. They just need help sometimes to access what's
happening… mediation is quite a privilege because you meet people in a very deep way, very
quickly’ (Nicola)
Whilst mediation can serve to enhance professional capabilities, especially for those in HR roles, it
also had a strong connection with personal identity. Interviewees saw mediation as a fit with
personal values, providing a sense of integration of values and practice:
‘I've absorbed that training and translated into my own beliefs… I think my personal values
affect a lot of what I do at work anyway… I have a sense of fair play and justice… a need to
give people a chance to put their side forward’ (Frank)
122
‘… Why I want to do more of it (mediation), has come as much, if not more, from my
personal life than from my professional life and qualifications’ (Erica)
This integration was quite explicit for those with religious faith. For the two Quakers, the practice of
mediation resonated with principles of conflict resolution and non-violence. For Susan: ‘mediation
itself encourages some of those values anyway… in Christianity, treating people well or respectfully is
important regardless of any differences or anything like that’.
7.3 Sources of Theory
The mediators interviewed in this research were asked, ‘in what ways, if any, does theory inform
your practice?’ Their replies revealed there was little explicit connection with theory when
undertaking their initial training; indeed little expectation that theory be referenced in training. For
Sarah, theory held little relevance as she saw ‘the training very much as just another training course
not that it was backed up by any particular theory’. What was received in training is to be taken on
trust; a set of techniques and a process to follow: ‘that this is the way you do it and this is the way
we do it at the university’ (Sarah). Theory is assumed to be embedded in the practices taught in the
training; ‘the theory we employ is the training we've been given’ (Rose). Theory was seen as
somewhat abstract and removed from the practical need to master basic skills (David). Theory was
associated, particularly in a university, with academic research (Penny), whereas what mediators are
seeking is a ‘mental framework’ (John), a practical guide through the process.
Less experienced mediators often referred back to their original training manuals in order to address
questions about theory. Aside from the assistance of a manual, interviewees were generally
uncertain as to the model of mediation they were deploying, rarely able to identify it unprompted as
facilitative mediation or to cite principled negotiation as a component on which this model is
founded (Fisher and Ury, 1997):
‘I can't remember what it was called… positions-interests model I guess. I can't remember
what it was called’ (Frank)
‘I don't know whether I could name it for you. I could describe it to you; I don't think I could
name it’ (Angela)
Even where key concepts such as BATNA (the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) are
utilised in training, only a subset of trainees could recall the term even when prompted. In contrast,
interviewees readily recalled the distillation of practice into the acronyms coined by each training
provider. TCM provide trainees with SING (Situation, Impact, Needs, and Goals) whilst CMP utilise
123
DESC (Describe, Explain, Show Understanding, Communicating an Alternative). For university
mediators, model is a term which describes the process they have learned in training, not something
theorised in the literature: ‘I absolutely do use a model, of five steps…following the FAIR (Facilitate,
Appreciate, Innovate, and Resolve) TCM model around…’ (Lynda).
Basic training for these mediators had been provided by a limited number of organisations (see
Figure 7). These training providers seek to project mediation as ‘a mind-set; a framework; and a
competence’ (TCM, 2016). Competence centres on the acquisition of a set of key skills, e.g.
questioning, summarising, and listening. These are set within the context of a proprietary mediation
model and supported by an integrating framework or process. This model can ostensibly represent
an ambitious synthesis across a number of theoretical models:
‘CMP talk about their own model… they call it the interactive mediation process… which
combines the best elements of facilitative and transformative mediation with the clear
problem-solving orientation of evaluative mediation’ (Sarah, quoting from the CMP manual)
However, what is outlined in training is not necessarily well understood or translated into practice.
When queried further on any evaluative aspect in her practice, Sarah acknowledged: ‘the way we
practice is we are much more neutral than that. We don't have an opinion, we can't give a hint, we
can't guide’.
7.3.1 Theory of Conflict
If theory in general is a distant connection for mediators, what happens when the questioning is
framed more specifically around conflict? Theorising conflict is important as it forms the basis for
intervention as a mediator, a meta-theory to guide decision making. Thus the facilitative model of
mediation is predicated on an understanding that conflict arises from disputants being locked into
positions with resolution to be achieved in the exploration of interests (Fisher and Ury, 1997). This
principle is clearly flagged in initial training:
'In facilitative mediation, the mediator structures a process to assist the parties in reaching a
mutually agreeable resolution. The mediator asks questions, validates and normalises the
parties' points of view, searches for interests underneath the positions, and assists the
parties in finding and analysing options for resolution' (Penny, citing the Acas training
manual)
However, when initially asked about her theory of conflict, the same interviewee responded that
there was a relational aspect to each conflict: ‘every issue I've dealt with has been due to a
124
breakdown in interpersonal relationships… often due to a misunderstanding, which has then led to
communication breaking down’ (Penny). This is a significant difference, as Penny’s espoused theory
reflects the relational philosophy underpinning the transformative model whilst her training is
rooted in the interest-based understanding of the facilitative model.
A different slant on the relational was expressed as conflict arising from a lack of communication
(Penny) or miscommunication as the root of conflict:
‘… all of the cases are around miscommunication or mismanagement of some description. So
my background, my interest in how people interact and how people perceive each other and
how things can be misinterpreted or perceived differently by individuals, it plays a big
influence on that’ (Michael)
Conflict was also seen as arising from difference in individuals: ‘people have got different values,
they've got different things that they want out of life; they’ve got different ways of expressing
themselves and so on’ (Angela). For a few mediators, conflict was specifically connected with
theoretical constructs such as the Thomas Kilman model of conflict (Frank) or the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) (Lynda). These seek to categorise individual traits or styles and explain how these
interact in conflict situations. However, commonly there was a vague recollection of matters learned
in training which had been subsumed in the practical techniques of mediation:
‘I have a vague recollection of some diagram that shows the beginning of a conflict and then
it gets to a middle bit where tensions are very terrible, then it goes round. But do you know I
can't remember’... ‘God knows. There's not a particular theory at all that I draw on or relate
to or try and match in any way shape or form.’ (Marian)
‘I will have covered this when I did my CIPD qualification for HR and all sorts of things. But
details dribble away and you’re left with this sort of practical application of the theory rather
than where you started which was in the theory’ (John)
Sources of conflict theory external to mediation emanated from a wide variety of fields, often with a
linkage to sociology or psychology: ‘… it comes down to either power or it comes down the old
(question)... of resource, finance, monetary loss or gain’ (Diane). Some interviewees linked this to
knowledge acquired in prior higher education study; ’psychological theory… and also social
interaction theory from both psychology and sociology as well’ (Carolyn); ‘Goffman… ’ (Lynda); ‘years
of psychology’ (Tim); ‘interpersonal communication, the stuff I studied a long time ago at university’
(Michael). For others there was an accretion of theory in their main roles - ‘…a little bit of Rogerian
counselling’ (Carolyn); ‘Transactional Analysis, MBTI types’ (Lynda);’ Situational Leadership’ (Penny);
125
‘Thomas Kilman… Myers Briggs’ and ‘personality stuff called FIRO Element-B’ (Nicola). In particular,
those with coaching as their main role saw opportunities for cross fertilisation into the practice of
mediation:
‘… within the mediator world, within the coaching world, and within the learning world, we
have lots of opportunities to attend short seminars, breakfast meetings, bits of new research
that come out…remarkable what you can draw from one side and use somewhere else’
(Lynda)
7.4 Personal Integration
How does the integration of practice and theory take place for these university mediators? For the
inexperienced, there is a need to get the basics right before seeking to engage explicitly with theory.
If what is practised now is working, there is less impetus for change:
‘I've not looked a great deal into other mediation theory. Interests me, but lately I can't find
the time to do it… I'm not sure how much that would influence my practice at the moment
being a relative rookie and I guess wanting to develop the techniques I have and get really
effective at delivering those… the model that we have works quite well for our organisation
and we've got some really good results out of it… gives me a bigger picture around what I'm
doing but it doesn't necessarily directly shape every decision I make throughout the course of
a mediation.’ (David)
More experienced mediators echoed this pragmatism, seeking to learn and develop by means of
reflective learning that focused on what is or is not working well in mediation; a Type 1 learning
(Argyris and Schön, 1974). Such reflection does not seek to draw on theory or on ‘models to confirm
or to confirm what I do’ but ‘what appears to have worked… should I do a bit more of this? This is not
working should I do less of that?’ (Lynda). Post-mediation reflection was said to address two
questions: ‘how did the case go?’ and ‘how did we cooperate as co-mediators’ (U4). This inevitably
produces a discussion centred on micro practice; ‘understanding what your best techniques might be
in particular cases and adapting accordingly’ (John). What is missing is the reflexive question, ‘what
was going on inside of me?’ (Lynda).
An alternative is to come into contact with theory that is found to be useful and then consciously
look to experiment in practice; Type 2 learning (Argyris and Schön, 1974): ‘When I think about an
idea, I digest it and make sense of it first and then consciously try to do something different based on
that…only typically when the theory challenges me in some way’ (Frank). There appears however to
be no systematic search for useful theory; that is with one notable exception: ‘it's quite handy being
126
part of a university actually. And so I've signed up to Conflict Resolution Quarterly, and get some
papers sent through…’ (Diane).
Does this loose connection between theory and practice matter? For these mediators there was a
crucial test of pragmatism: Does what I learn help me in my practice? Are there are there other
areas I can draw on that might help?
‘I just take what's useful to me, to be perfectly honest. And just because I've been taught a
particular theory and a particular model I mightn't adhere to it 100%. I just take what
appeals to me and disregard the rest’ (Carolyn)
‘I've used other thinking to inform what I think is right in mediation without really
considering how closely it relates to my original training’ (Frank)
Approaching theory in this manner leads to a personalised, albeit eclectic, integration and one which
is dependent both on personal schema and theory drawn from other areas. This can lead to a
particular personal integration which is further honed with the experience of practising mediation:
‘… you latch on to the bits that interest you or you recognise or you value and you take it
away and you sharpen it and change it, interpret into your own thinking and off you go... So,
arguably that's a limitation of how mediation is trained possibly, if the way it's been
interpreted by a particular mediator is the way it is intended. So, it's that tension between
the way you should do it and the way people translate it’ (Frank)
For those with able to draw on a wide background of experience this can lead to relatively complex
schema:
‘I absorb the models if I find it useful I do something about it. I'm very pragmatic... the group
psychotherapy approach that I developed... in the institution I worked in, you could only call
eclectic. You made use of the bits you can and discard the rest. So, there wasn't a great sense
about exactly what the model was you were using. It was much more: what was effective
with the clients you were working with at this particular moment in time?’ (Lynda)
Are there dangers to such a personal integration? For these mediators, theory was largely
unexamined; a condition that on reflection was seen as having potential consequences for practice
as there can be no assurance that underlying premises and assumptions are common:
127
‘I certainly wouldn't say that I, or others I talk to, have been consciously discussing the kind of
models and approaches we have. And it may be that we all have quite different assumptions;
we're just not articulating them to each other; I don't know’. (John)
7.5 Social Interaction
How do mediators conceive of the interaction that plays out in mediation? Do they see themselves
as engaged in a dialogical intersubjective process, as subjective observers or as objective process
experts? What light does mediator practice shed on the interaction that takes place in mediation?
Consider the issue of mediator style, and in particular how stylistically flexible mediators are case by
case. When interviewed, the university mediators recognised that every case varies and that
mediator responses should therefore be responsive to the interaction. Flexibility in style is therefore
required: ‘I think, if you're a mediator you have to be prepared to be flexible’ (Anna); ‘it's about
judging your audience really and changing your style accordingly’ (Michael).
Flexibility is, however, tied to experience. An inexperienced mediator may lack the confidence to
deviate from standard practice: ‘for people who have just been trained and don't have a lot of
experience. There's that temptation to follow...I must follow the procedure’ (Susan); ‘…given my
relatively limited experience ... I would want to agree any flexibility in advance. I would find it
probably quite difficult to be flexible on the day, at this stage of my experience’ (Angela). Equally,
there may be no realisation of the need for flexibility. For example, one inexperienced mediator
reflected that engagement with this research had caused her to recognise that mediation has
multiple goals; it can be about more than resolution:
‘… I always felt that the aim was always to get to a solution, to get resolution. I feel that left
me to be inflexible, so now I'm more aware of it, I'd like to think I'd be more flexible in the
future’ (Sarah)
Conversely, flexibility is seen as acquired with experience and the opportunity to practice variations
on the basic techniques; ‘the more I practice the more flexible I am’ (Diane).
7.5.1 Metaphors as pointers
Metaphors are a means of conceptualising experience and bringing coherence to practice (Lakoff
and Johnson, 2008), enabling mediators to explain their practice to each other and to the parties.
Metaphors are a manifestation of particular world-views (Smith and Eisenberg, 1987) and thus
connect to the personal schema of individual mediators. More particularly in the field of mediation,
metaphors represent ‘particular ways of viewing conflict’ and moreover ‘specific individual roles that
128
are to be enacted’ (Borton and Paul, 2015: 264). Examining the metaphors mediators deploy, and in
contrast those rejected, can therefore shed light on their practice, the conception of social
interaction that guides such practice and the meta-theory that underpins it.
In the course of interviewing, the metaphor of ‘conversation’ was popular, utilised unprompted by
seven (of 18) interviewees. For these mediators it conveys a sense of how they conceive of
mediation: ‘I honestly feel that I go in with my co-mediator… and we have a conversation’ (Susan).
Mediation is seen as an ‘honest conversation’ (Nicola), in contrast with the fractured communication
which has preceded mediation and enmeshed the parties in conflict. Such a conversation enables
parties to appreciate the perspective of the other party even where positions differ (Nicola).
Conversation, in mediation, is where the ‘magic happens’ (Erica). Establishing and promoting
conversation therefore become important goals to achieve if the potential of mediation is to be
realised. Indeed, mediation may be conceived as the means to an end, a process which begets and
supports a conversation:
‘I tend to think of mediation as a sort of framework around a conversation really.’ (John)
The use of conversation as a metaphor is distinctive but personal; an expression of their individual
schema for a sub set of mediators. This was demonstrated, strikingly, in the case of David and
Angela. Their Phase Three interviews, conducted separately, reflected on a case which they had
recently co-mediated. For David, ‘conversation’ was readily deployed to describe the interaction
with the parties and used on 36 occasions. In contrast Angela, over the course of a one-hour
interview, had a narrative in which the word ‘conversation’ was entirely absent.
What do mediators mean when they employ the term ‘conversation’? Conversation points to a
conception of social interaction, a means for the parties to explore and find meaning; an ‘interesting
whole world of conversation about what common sense is’ (David). But what role does the mediator
play in such a co-construction between the parties? For David the mediator is ‘somebody who can
keep the conversation going and make sure it is a 2-way conversation’. To perform this role requires
decisions on structure and control.
Some mediators like to ‘let the conversation flow and interrupt as little as possible… against
somebody who's very, very structured and likes to really manage the conversation very tightly’
(David). The degree to which individual mediators are comfortable with allowing conversation to
flow is an aspect of personal style. This may evolve as mediators become more experienced and
achieving a conversation is recognised as a primary objective:
129
‘I think I became slightly more relaxed about structure… there are people that I mediate with
that are very, very concerned about the structure and the check lists, the agreement and the
exact placing of everything. And I think all of those things are very important but to me my
focus became much more on getting into the conversation’ (Erica)
Letting the conversation flow does not mean the mediator fulfils an entirely passive role. Mediators
steer conversations: ‘you listen and ultimately you steer the conversation’ (Erica). They do so to
enable a conversation between the parties but also to push towards an outcome, ‘… directing it to
more outcome driven conversation and something that the other party will find more palatable’
(David). They exercise control to offset power and intervene if a conversation is becoming
unproductive. They analyse conversations and tighten or loosen structure as they assess the
interaction of the parties. They choose what to re-enforce in a conversation: ‘That's a big theme that
I'm hearing out of this conversation’ (John). Nonetheless, there is a degree of detachment, the
mediator as objective observer, the expert in the mediation process.
‘… they're the experts if you like in what's going on and they should understand that process
better than the parties in the room… Well I don't feel like an expert mediator. So, but I guess
that I, it's relative, so the… in terms of who has the knowledge and expertise, for want of a
better word, of the process, how things are going to work, I think that will remain with the
mediator and you do have to, you do have to shoulder the responsibility’ (David)
‘Conversation’ arose as a metaphor unprompted during the course of interviewing the mediators. In
contrast, the metaphor of ‘negotiation’ was prompted in the survey by the statement ‘Success in
Mediation is when a negotiation is carried out between the parties’. Responses to this statement
evinced some to a cautious acceptance that there is ‘an element of negotiation within mediation’
(Tim). More commonly however, ‘negotiation’ evoked a negative response: ‘negotiation is just a
foreign term’ (Michael). For this group of university mediators negotiation is not a frame which fits
well: ‘I don't think it has anything to do with the parties negotiating, I think that's a bit irrelevant to
me. I see negotiation as not being part of this at all.’ (Angela)
This is perhaps surprising, as principled negotiation is a foundational concept in the facilitative
model (Soliman, 2014; Avruch, 2003; Morris, 2015; Bush and Folger, 2012). Moreover, negotiation is
a metaphor that is commonly used in commercial mediation settings where the facilitative model is
deployed (Zimmerman, 2009; Reuben, 1999; Goldberg, 2005a; Picard, 2004). Framing mediation as
negotiation is adduced as a shortcoming of commercial mediation (Gewurz, 2001). What accounts
for this seeming anomaly?
130
Firstly, there is an issue of context. Negotiation is an acceptable way of explaining mediation in
certain circumstances, typically those where monetary compensation is involved or an Employment
Tribunal process sits in the background. These, more properly labelled as employment rather than
workplace mediation, are the exception in university mediation services and not experienced by the
majority of those interviewed:
‘… some of the cases I've been involved in mediation have been used much more as a
negotiation tool…we have been looking at exit packages or means by which, heading down
the route of a grievance or an industrial tribunal. So what can be done to get us off of that
road?’ (Diane)
Secondly, for those interviewed, negotiation is viewed as ‘basically a transactional discussion where
parties try and get what they want’ (John). Negotiation conjures up an image of ‘to-ing and fro-ing,
offer and counter offer… you reach a compromise a win/lose… That for me is not what mediation is
about’ (Erica). Negotiation is conceived as a distributive and not an integrative process.
This antipathy to the metaphor of negotiation has two consequences. Firstly, how mediators
conceive of their practice where conversation becomes the metaphor of choice:
‘It's just being able to try and get two people, very often who haven't been able to
communicate for months properly, actually to just have that conversation, to share how they
feel and what they want. So, there hasn't been a need for what I would define as negotiation’
(Anna)
Secondly, how mediators explain their practice to the parties based on a perception they will have
hold similar negative connotations with negotiation: ‘In essence it (negotiation) is exactly what
you're carrying out, but that word has got a certain connotation for people and a certain context and
that's not where we've looked to position it’ (Nicola).
7.6 Decision Making
Mediators may have a checklist of activities to carry out in conducting mediation but need
continually to take account of how the interaction is unfolding before them. Decisions must
constantly be made as to how and when to intervene, yet the personal schema utilised by mediators
to guide their decision making are said to be largely hidden from them (Kressel, 2013). When
interviewed, mediators struggled to explain how they made their decisions: ‘I can't tell you why I
would intervene at a certain time or how do I make decisions during mediation. It's a very
unconscious thing for me’ (Penny). Attempting to describe their cognitive process, interviewees
131
referred to intuition (Carolyn, John) or instinct (Frank, Nicola, Penny, and Ciara). This was intended
to convey a sense of immediacy, responding ‘in the moment’ (Erica) and unreflective, ‘an instinctive
way rather than a considered way’ (Frank); in short, Type 1 thinking (Kahneman, 2012).
Comments from the two experienced mediators illustrate the unreflective embedded nature of
mediator intuition, a skill that is an unconscious competence. Ciara spoke of ‘being a mediator
rather than doing a choice’. Paul provided a golfing analogy:
‘I think it's rather like when I play golf. If I try very hard and think about it, I probably play
very badly indeed. If I just relax and let the whole thing wash over me, I play quite naturally.
And I suspect that's how I do mediation.’
The development of intuition was ascribed by interviewees to experience. Experience was seen as
essential to break free of the strictures of initial training and be more attuned and responsive to the
interaction: ‘initially I was conscious of procedure and training whereas now… there's a framework
there or a few goals in mind, but actually more receptive to what's happening in front of me’ (Frank).
Experience enabled mediators to shape their practice by developing patterns and respond to their
emergence in each case. In the interaction they recognised patterns and drew on their own
experience to select the appropriate course of action:
‘No answer to that other than actually that's always what I've done and instinctively it feels
like the right thing to do’ (Penny)
‘I rely upon intuition and I rely upon reading the people, reading their body language and
listening, listening to what's really being said… I think intuition is developed from experience,
as well as having that gut feeling I never know where it comes from... a certain type of cloud
in the sky and my experience tells me it might be snow or whatever… it's your experience, it's
your observations over several years’ (Carolyn)
In developing their theory of practice, mediators adopted a heuristic, deductive approach. They
trialled the usage of a technique and they judged the impact on the interaction: ‘put something out
there and then reassess’ (Diane) or ‘that didn't work, I won't try that again’ (Frank). Practising
mediation in this way places the interaction as an object, an experimental place to test hypotheses;
decision making drives the interaction.
Contrast this however, with Lynda’s account of how she inductively approached decision making.
There is recognition that an intervention or change of direction is required because parties have
become stuck. The focus is on the parties and the interaction drives the decision making.
132
‘What's going on in you that says this is a good time and place to do this’... ‘I think that will
be by observing what's happening with the other party… Or a sense that something is stuck’
(Lynda)
‘…a sense that something is stuck, that's the first intimation that I need to, maybe alter my
interventions’ (Lynda)
‘it's deliberately thinking I'm going to the process now…get the participants to focus on the
process because that gives them a breather away from the conflict…just changing that
dynamic slightly and when you go back to the task at hand which is the conflict sometimes a
teeny-weeny thing has changed’ (Lynda)
What might explain this difference between Lynda and the others? A degree in sociology and an
ability to invoke Goffman when discussing interaction suggests a disposition towards the importance
of the interaction. Moreover, there is theoretical anchoring for this approach:
‘The mediator's role is facilitative and non-directive, focusing on the moment-to-moment
unfolding conflict interaction, and offering support for its transformation’ (Folger, 2008)
7.7 Micro Practice
Beyond a strategy, framework or process lays the micro practice of mediation, those techniques
deployed by the mediator in the course of each case. Choices must be made as to when these are
used but underpinning this choice is a meta-theory. In the course of their interviews, mediators
illustrated aspects of their practice by reference to techniques such as note taking and questioning
and were asked what lay behind their thinking?
Note taking is a technique introduced in basic training where information gathering is emphasised.
Mediators explained its purpose as ‘… to keep track of the issues as they are raised. So as to form the
formative agenda for the joint meeting’ (Erica) and ‘scribbling some notes and taking something
down that perhaps you might forget after some many minutes of talking and listening’ (Anna). The
focus here is on the mediator ensuring that what is said is duly noted, but to what purpose? Is the
mediator seeking to become better informed about the ‘facts’ of the case, a positivist ontology with
the mediator positioned as expert deciding what is or is not important? Alternatively, is the mediator
seeking to assisting a party to articulate what is important for them; a constructivist approach where
the mediator’s role is ‘to help increase parties' understanding of their own views and the views of the
other party’ (Folger, 2008).
133
Note taking appears to be a comfortable activity that demonstrates attention to the parties, but it
inevitably draws the mediator attention away from the interaction. A choice must therefore be
made. Attend to notes, in which case the mediator is central, or to the interaction where the parties
are central. With experience, mediators are able to reflect on these two approaches as illustrated by
one exchange:
Rose: ‘(note taking) is a prompt really to make sure you've picked everything up.
So, if that person is making some notes and then I’m feeding back to the
party what I've heard, if I've missed something my co-mediator can chip in
and say, 'and there is also this'
Researcher: ‘OK and what would happen if that had been missed by the co-mediator?’
Rose: ‘Then hopefully the party would say, 'no, there was this'. Otherwise it's lost’
Another possible way of categorising mediator moves is to divide them into monological and
dialogical approaches (Glenn and Kuttner, 2013). Is meaning determined by the hearer, or jointly
constructed between parties. Indicative of the approach is the motivation behind asking questions:
‘We'll ask questions, we'll try and get information, we'll both be trying to get the
information’ (Marian)
Here the focus is on the mediator obtaining the facts, becoming informed and subsequently enabled
to make decisions based on this information. The focus is on finding information, whereas a
dialogical approach would see questioning as co-constructing information which has meaning for the
parties within their interaction.
7.8 Summary
Development as a mediator is said to require a ‘commitment to the notion that theory shapes
practice’ (Lang and Taylor, 2000). These university mediators initially assume a reverse connection;
that the theory they need is embedded in basic training. In such training mediators acquire a
common set of skills and a common process but not necessarily a common set of assumptions.
Without an explicit connection with mediation theory there is little to anchor their practice, and
mediators clearly draw on multiple other sources whilst discarding theory no longer seen as
relevant. This can lead to mismatches where what is practised differs from the underlying premises
of the originally taught model. Thus conversation and not negotiation is the metaphor of choice,
pointing to a theory-in-action which is relational and not transactional and where the self is formed
in dialogue (Glenn and Kuttner, 2013).
134
This mismatch between practice and model is significant as it points to a difference in underlying
philosophy which is analysed further in Chapter 8. Principled negotiation proposes that the people
are separated from the problem; that conflict is resolved by identifying interests (Menkel Meadow,
2006). However, as described in Chapter 4, for university mediators the focus is on the people and
conflict is resolved by enabling and repairing communication.
Mediators do develop their own theories of practice although gaining experience is an issue for
many. Competent habitual practice, mastering the rules of mediation, takes precedence over the
development of heedful practice, a focus on interaction. Habitual performance is the ‘outcome of
drill and repetition’, whereas heedful performance is the outcome of ‘training and experience that
weave together thinking, feeling, and willing’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 512). Learning is effected by
reflective exercises with a focus on techniques – what should I do? – rather than on reflexivity – who
am I? Integration is personalised, idiosyncratic and eclectic, relying heavily on the disciplines
practised in their main roles. The practice of mediation assumes an importance for both personal
and professional identity.
Mediators were not attuned to meta-theory and the drivers of decision making were largely
unexplored by them. Intuition and instinct were offered as explanations, whilst exploring their
meanings revealed a deductive approach where pre-conceptions, hypotheses as to the participants,
the case and good techniques or patterns in mediation are tested (Rooney and Ross, 2012). Social
interaction becomes an object, the place of experimentation. There was however an exception:
Lynda, who took an inductive approach drawing information from the interaction of the parties. This
begs several questions; do mediators have a predilection for either deductive or inductive
approaches? Does that change with experience or respondent to emerging goals; say relational or
transactional? Does the philosophy of root causes (TCM, HR practice) drive this choice? Are
mediators seeking information, mutual understanding and common ground as paths to resolution or
the co-construction of meaning as the basis for change and new ground?
Intuition, as outlined in Section 2.2.3, is a spontaneous response to interaction that can lead to
patterned behaviour or creative improvisation. The former is a manifestation of habitual practice,
the mastery of basic mediation skills; the latter represents heedful practice, a heighted attenuation
to interaction. What is evidenced in Section 7.6 by interviewees’ comments is intuition which leads
to action which is patterned. However, there is in addition, evidence of improvisation: Frank moving
beyond procedure and training to be receptive to interaction; Lynda’s willingness to be inductive, to
let the interaction drive her decision making. This is evidence of the emergence of personalised
practice, a theme that is developed further in succeeding chapters.
135
Chapter 8 – Discussion
8.1 Introduction
In the literature review, mediation was examined as a complex social interaction that can be
understood from a symbolic interactionist viewpoint and mapped to practice models. Conceiving of
mediation as an intersubjective process which defines and shapes the self is a theoretical approach
that is distinct from other approaches emphasising the individual and their interests. Such
distinctions are important because they operate at a meta-level; an overarching framework for
models, techniques and micro-practices. How mediators conceive of social interaction is said to
affect how they conceive their role and their performance of mediation; a ‘social/communicative
view of conflict fosters significantly different visions of the nature of conflict processes than does the
psychological/economic view’ (Della Noce, Bush, and Folger, 2002: 50).
Mediators are said to respond to the complexity of their task by developing an individual style (Wall
and Kressel, 2012) which draws on formal models and personal schema to produce an integrated
practice. Integrating practice without a connection to theory can however be problematic, producing
syncretism, an ‘uncritical and unsystematic combination’ of ‘pet techniques’ (Norcross and
Goldfried, 2005, 15). Understanding a mediator’s engagement with the concept of social interaction
is a means of analysing their development of an integrated practice. Accordingly, the first cluster of
research questions addressed the theme of social interaction:
1. How do mediators conceive of interaction?
2. What theory do mediators draw on to shape their practice?
3. How do mediators make decisions?
4. In what ways might an explicit understanding of Social Interaction Theory contribute to a
mediator developing a consciously integrated, flexible practice?
The concept of personal style suggests that each mediator will practice mediation differently. The
practice of mediation in universities, however, is predominantly co-mediation (Poyntz, 2012), which
therefore raises a further aspect of interaction, namely that between the mediators. A second set of
research questions – relating to the theme of co-mediation – was therefore formulated:
1. How does co-mediation become effective given differing personal styles?
2. How do mediators coordinate their actions and cognitions?
136
In general, university workplace mediators are relatively inexperienced in the practice of mediation
and moreover practice infrequently (Poyntz, 2012). The mediation services who engaged in this
study had been in operation for at least five years, and yet the most experienced interviewee in this
study had accumulated just 20 cases over a period of seven years. The mediators were therefore
relatively reliant on what they had learned in initial training to guide their practice. Initial training, as
has been shown in Chapter 7, is light on explicit theory in general and on social interaction theory in
particular. Nonetheless, university mediators are not devoid of connection with theory, as the
interviews showed, but draw on other experiences and frameworks external to mediation, especially
in their main roles.
Asking mediators directly about theory, as described in Chapter 7, tended to elicit a limited
response. Consequently, this study adopted an inductive approach, inviting mediators to describe
their practice and then seeking to locate these responses in the context of interaction theory. Earlier
chapters drew a number of tentative conclusions as to the practice of university workplace
mediators about their goals, engagement with theory, orientation to power and their endeavours to
make co-mediation effective. This chapter develops these themes further and discusses the
inferences that may be made from these accounts of mediator practice of their conceptualisation of
the interaction that takes place in mediation.
8.2 First and Second-Generation Models of Mediation
Formal models of mediation differ in their treatment of social interaction. In the facilitative model,
interaction is implied. The model provides a framework in which parties, assisted by a mediator, can
interact to reach an agreement. Second-generation models such as narrative or transformative
mediation are intentionally explicit in their treatment of social interaction. They function on the
premise that a change in the interaction between parties in conflict is foundational in the
achievement of sustainable resolution. The transformative model provides a framework in which
parties can improve or restore interaction (Bush, 2008). The narrative model provides a framework
where discursive reasoning, the disruption and rebuilding of narrative by the parties can occur
(Hansen, 2004).
Two important features of these second-generation models are a distinctive meta-theory, which
underpins practice, and the use, or avoidance, of techniques utilised by the facilitative model. A
basic tenet of second-generation models is that mediation is more than the assembly of techniques
into a process which can be flexed to meet different goals, as noted by Della Noce (2002):
137
‘Bush and Folger's analysis was tying practice differences to theories of practice embedded
in value-laden ideological meaning systems, and the attendant argument that mediators'
preferred approaches were more a matter of deeply held values and assumptions than a
matter of any strategic selection process contingent on party and case characteristics’ (Della
Noce et al., 2002: 55)
Such an approach brings an epistemic clarity. Akin to the qualitative researcher, the mediator is
enjoined to practice in line with an explicit epistemology. Narrative mediation is a subjectivist, post-
modernist approach where the mediator engages directly with the parties in a process of co-
destruction and subsequent co-construction of narrative (Winslade and Monk, 2002).
Transformative mediation is an intersubjective approach premised on an explicit view of parties in
conflict:
‘that human beings have inherent capacity and desire for both agency and empathy, and
therefore flourish in processes like transformative mediation that support these capacities’
(Bush and Folger, 2013: 235)
8.3 The enactment of the Facilitative Model
When asked about theory, some interviewees expressed their expectation that any theory they
required was embedded within the formal model introduced in basic training. Even more
experienced mediators expressed a reliance on the 5-step process acquired at this stage.
Accordingly, examining the facilitative model as described by interviewees is a useful point of
departure in revealing their implicit understanding of social interaction.
Looking at a macro level, it is necessary to observe that facilitative mediation can, in practice, be
enacted in a number of ways. One particular feature distinguishes differences in approach in
facilitative mediation to interaction: the use of caucus, the mediator meeting parties separately, and
its relationship to joint meetings (Picard, 2000). The strategy behind the use of caucus – what the
mediator is seeking to achieve in those separate meetings – highlights the importance placed on
interaction, the nature of that interaction, and the power exercised by the mediator in performing
their role. If interaction is deemed essential, joint meetings, where parties are in direct contact, will
be emphasised and the caucus will be used to prepare parties to make effective use of joint
meetings. In dramaturgical terms, caucus becomes a place where performance is rehearsed; the
joint meeting where perceptions are shaped in interaction (Goffman, 1959) and the potential for
change created. Where a more individualistic approach is practised, interaction is curtailed and
filtered via the mediator. The joint meeting becomes a formalised prelude to a rapid retreat to
138
caucus (Coben, 2004) where the mediation remains until conclusion (Goldberg and Shaw, 2010).
Caucus is where goals, particularly of settlement, are reached, and the mediator is firmly in control
of the process and information flow (Moore, 1983; Gerami, 2009).
The use of caucus follows a norm, a set of expectations as to how mediation is performed in any
given context. Consider for example the use of caucus in commercial mediation in the United States;
an important reference point in that the focus on caucus has underpinned a settlement driven
approach to mediation. This, in turn, elicited a critique as to the purpose of mediation, leading to the
development and establishment of the transformative model (Bush and Folger, 1994). The norm for
US commercial mediation is for the joint meeting to yield quickly to caucus, responding to the
expectation of lawyers that separation of the parties is the appropriate path to drive a negotiation to
settlement (Stipanowich, 2016). This positions the mediator, shuttling between the parties, to
exercise power in shaping or determining settlement. The embodiment of such power is the
mediator proposal, a mediator-determined basis for resolution, that is reported to be used in
precipitating settlement in 90% of cases (Klerman and Klerman, 2015). A safe space is created in this
approach, but it is located in the caucus where parties are invited to interact and share confidences
with the mediator.
This practice is in stark contrast to the account given by interviewees of workplace mediation in
British universities. Here, following the process laid down in basic training, mediators spoke of a
caucus as a preparation for the joint meeting. Caucus is used to construct the joint meeting as a safe
space for the parties to meet on an equal footing where they will be able to speak and be heard. The
expectation is that the mediation will continue in joint session as this will enable the parties to
interact or, as the interviewees termed it, to communicate with each other. Only by exception
where, in the mediator’s judgement, parties are unable to communicate effectively will a joint
meeting be paused for a break or possibly a further caucus. The safe space created in this approach
is located in the joint meeting where parties are invited to interact with each other directly.
What accounts for this difference in practice? One possible explanation is to attribute it to the
strategic selection of techniques and a re-ordering of the process to achieve relational rather than
instrumental goals, i.e. same (facilitative) model, different process. In essence, interviewees
articulated a realist approach where there is a right answer to interventions and as, they explained,
you just needed to follow the process. Skilful mediation becomes the ability to make the correct
choice of technique in response to interaction; a form of bricolage, the handyman or woman making
use of the tools available to complete the task at hand (Kincheloe, 2001).
139
An alternative is to view interaction in the context of epistemology; to acknowledge that a
mediator’s worldview or meta-theory influences how they practice, i.e. same model, different
epistemic enactment. To adopt such a perspective questions the notion of the mediator as an
objective neutral and admits to wider possibilities:
‘If I see the world as an objectivist then I’m managing structures, systems, and human assets
or resources. If I see the world from a subjectivist perspective, I manage people with different
interpretations of situations, and I am careful about the language I use because it shapes
“realities.” If I believe in intersubjectivity, then I am careful about relationships with people—
who are human beings—and skilfully attuned and responsive to what is happening around
me’ (Cunliffe, 2016: 744)
Practice as epistemology constitutes an approach where knowledge and doing are connected
(Gherardi, 2009). In the legal field, epistemic understanding is the conception that lawyers have of
their work which is distinctive and differs from ‘other ways of knowing, being, and doing’ (Menkel-
Meadow, 1999: 787). This epistemic understanding can shape practice in profound ways. Relis
(2005), in her study of lawyer participation in the mediation of personal injury claims, found that
lawyers and parties inhabit parallel universes. A lawyer‘s epistemic understanding, as applied to
mediation, can readily lead to the enactment of the facilitative model in settlement mode as
described above for US commercial mediation.
8.4 Alternative Benchmarks
The transformative model represents one such alternative point of reference as an explicitly non-
realist, intersubjective approach to mediation. Direct and sustained interaction between the parties
is important for university mediators but how is the nature of this interaction conceived? Symbolic
Interactionism proposes a self that is shaped in interaction with an ‘Other’, by a threefold process of
communication, interpretation and adjustment; a process which is both intersubjective and co-
constructive. The transformative model adopts a similar approach which is termed relational and
centred on human interconnection. This may be contrasted to what is seen as the individualistic
pursuit of interests and settlement in facilitative mediation. The goal of transformative mediation is
to enable recognition (of the Other) and empowerment (of the Self), to enable interaction between
parties in conflict to function effectively (Folger and Bush, 2014). Settlement and even relationship
repair are not precluded as the outcome of transformative mediation but adjuncts; goals that are
contingent on the restoration of interactional capacity, and which parties are free to choose or
decline.
140
Despite their basic training in the facilitative model, those interviewed provided accounts of practice
that map to the transformative approach in several aspects. The use of a preliminary and
preparatory caucus before conducting the mediation in joint session is identical (Tereanu and
Quattrocolo, 2011). As detailed in Chapter 6, interviewees regarded recognition, the ability of one
party to recognise the perspective of the other, as an essential step in the mediation process. This
was achieved in interaction (communication) with the mediator taking the responsibility to facilitate
the change of perception that enables recognition. Empowerment of the parties was, however, only
viewed as a by-product rather than an essential product of mediation. Relational goals were
prioritised over settlement goals. Goals were tiered, each step contingent on the outcome of the
previous step. An initial goal was communication, but this can lead to partial or even full resolution
and relationship repair. Interviewees eschewed the use of negotiation as a metaphor in favour of a
conversation, mapping with transformative practice where we find the ‘metaphor of "constructive
conversation" as a way to describe the mediation process’ (Della Noce et al., 2008: 213). In terms of
the relational/problem-solving watershed theorised by Bush and Folger, the practice of mediation in
British universities can be seen as falling on the relational side. The facilitative model can clearly be
practiced in a way which is not ineluctably centred on problem-solving or settlement.
The mapping of university mediation practice to the transformative model was more equivocal in
the exercise of mediator power. On the one hand mediators endeavoured, as discussed in Chapter 5,
to create a power-with environment echoing Habermas’ concept of Communicative Action (Chilton,
Cuzzo, and Stalzer, 2005). Having facilitated the construction of safe space, the ideal next step was
for the mediator to fade into the background. On the other hand, interviewees described the use of
techniques that fall outwith transformative practice. Actions that interpose the mediator between
the parties redefine the interaction and affect the course of the mediation. In the transformative
model, parties are said to control the process whereas interviewees explained that, in their practice,
the mediator controls the process. Imposing ground rules on the parties, even in good faith in the
construction of safe space, constrains their interaction. Calling breaks or fresh caucuses physically
separates the parties. Adapting or translating communication between the parties, which occurs
when mediators reframe, similarly modifies the interaction.
What do these differences and similarities tell us about interaction as conceived by the mediators
participating in this research? Transformative practice is premised on an optimistic view of the
human capacity to interact (Folger and Bush, 2014). Mediators provide support to the parties but do
so in the specific context of empowerment and recognition. Practitioners are charged with observing
the interaction and when opportunities for empowerment and recognition arise, working with the
141
parties to amplify or highlight these. Mediators are instructed not to invite, or worse to urge,
recognition from the parties: ‘Although the mediator's goal may be party empowerment or
recognition, urging responses are attempts to orchestrate it, on the mediator's terms not the parties'
terms’ (Jorgensen, et al, 1999: 4). In contrast, university mediators are prepared to take a more
active role. When for instance describing their responsibility in reframing:
‘… It’s my role to help somebody to see something from a different perspective’ (Angela)
Here the mediator is cast in the role of helper, suggesting the possibility that parties may lack the
capacity to make progress without some direction or assistance. This may of course be an entirely
valid judgement, but it emanates from a different view of human capacity to that associated with
the transformative model.
Equally, the generation of ground rules for mediation may reveal an alternative view of interactional
capacity. University mediators believe ground rules are an important part of structuring the
mediation as a safe place; an underlying assumption that, in their absence, parties may lack the
capability to interact effectively. A transformative practitioner may simply operate without ground
rules (Gaspar, 2014). Furthermore, mediators may set ground rules with the consent of the parties
or, taking an even more pessimistic view of capacity, by imposition.
The narrative and transformative models of mediation are distinctive in emphasising interaction and
a relational approach: ‘… the creation of the relational conditions for the growth of an alternative
story’ (Winslade and Monk, 2002: 9). Paralleling university practice, both rely on the creation of a
space for the parties, ‘a psychologically safe environment’ (Hansen, 2004: 303). Both of these
approaches share a common assumption: mediation must achieve relational depth if it is to lead to
the sustainable resolution of conflict. In the transformative case, parties returning to the workplace
are able to function effectively because relational depth is achieved in empowerment and
recognition. In narrative mediation, relational depth enables a conflict-free narrative to be co-
constructed; a shared experience and understanding that can endure beyond mediation (Hansen,
2004). By contrast, an emphasis on settlement in mediation with an attendant focus on solving
problems, may not allow for interactional depth. Herein lies a challenge in university mediation;
mediators may be disposed to allow for, or promote, relational depth but they do not act in a
vacuum. They may be constrained by the expectations of their mediation service or the parties:
‘… It is a time limited solution focused intervention’ (Erica)
‘… the parties in conflict are just looking for a time limited focused technique for resolving
conflict’ (Lynda)
142
Where the transformative and narrative models differ is in the role created for the mediator and the
implications for the relationship with the parties. The transformative mediator is an observer of,
rather than a participant in, the interaction between the parties, seizing on opportunities to amplify
empowerment and recognition but yielding control of outcome and process to the parties. The
transformative model positions the mediator outside of both process and outcome; the mediator is
a follower not a leader, responding to the interaction rather than leading it. Transformative
mediators enact neutrality by seeking to impinge as little as possible on the interaction.
The narrative mediator, however, is part of the interaction: ‘a strong alliance with the conflicting
parties is paramount and becomes the foundation for the work to follow’ (Hansen, 2004: 303). This
‘strong alliance’ is more than simply rapport, a feature of the facilitative model cited by
interviewees. The ‘work to follow’ is a co-construction, the mediator actively working with the
parties in demolishing a conflict narrative and rebuilding a new narrative. There is no differentiation
between process and outcome, with the mediator exercising an ‘explicit role… as a party to the
conflict’ (Hansen, 2004: 307). Narrative mediators abandon neutrality and are actively engaged in
the interaction.
University mediators do not, however, practice such sharp delineations. They are participants in the
interaction but, maintaining a distinction between process and outcome, not to the extent required
of the narrative mediator. Moreover, university mediators vary their degree of engagement in
response to the interaction. Willing to act purely as initiators, they replicate the degree of
engagement of the transformative mediator. However, if the interaction requires more support,
they are prepared to engage further as promoters or even catalysts, a move that transformative
mediators would consider dis-empowering.
To participate in the interaction to any degree, but especially as a catalyst, begs the question as to
how a mediator influences the interaction. There is a parallel here with the researcher articulating
their epistemology, their relationship with the object of their research, and engaging in the practice
of reflexivity:
‘Reflexivity refers to the recognition that the involvement of the researcher as an active
participant in the research process shapes the nature of the process and the knowledge
produced through it’ (King, 2004b: 18)
From a Symbolic Interactionist perspective, reflexivity is ‘a particular kind of internal conversation’
that enables the self to continually re-assess the adequacy of understanding and theory (Milliken,
2012: 690). It can be enacted as ‘doing reflexivity’, a means of controlling ‘one’s professional,
143
personal, and cultural biases in order to understand the standpoint of the other’ (Bagshaw, 2001:
218). In practical terms diminishing the effect of bias enables the mediator to listen to the parties
with a ‘respect for differences, an attitude of openness’ that underpins rapport (Feldheim, 2004:
352). Reflexivity can however be practised relationally, producing ‘an understanding of how we
create ourselves and others in conversation’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 528), in what is a constructionist
perspective.
The facilitative model, as described by interviewees, seeks to position the mediator as a neutral,
influencing the ‘how’ of mediation (the process) but not the ‘what’ (the outcome). The stance of
neutrality has been linked to positivist thinking, ‘that argues that an observer can be separate from
the subject observed; that a mediator can intervene without having his or her values or experiences
affect the process’ (Wing, 2009: 390), so we might expect neutrality to be enacted as an objective
observer, with the mediator distant from the interaction. However, what was found in this study was
a range of interpretations of neutrality, from detached objective observer through supportive
facilitator to directive interactor. University mediators endeavour to enact neutrality but recognise
that values and experiences do come into play. Consequently, they enact neutrality in idiosyncratic
ways that reflect their own disposition and identity as mediators.
There is thus a dilemma for each university mediator between their espoused theory of neutrality
and their theory in action. Do they continue to assert neutrality, because this is the practice norm, or
do they adopt a different epistemological position that is more attuned to their actual practice?
Adopting an alternative epistemological position could bring coherence but needs to work for the
individual and also broadly fit within the practice of the mediation service for which they work.
Narrative and transformative mediation each offer an alternative to neutrality but might be
considered too radical a departure, requiring an entire mediation service to migrate to a different
model. A third possibility lies in the concept of the reflexive mediator, being rather than doing
reflexivity (Rothman, 2014). Acting reflexively the mediator takes account of ‘the relationship
between self, other, and context’ (Rothman, 2014: 443), an intersubjective, constructionist
epistemology. Neutrality is set aside as a positivist notion because mediation is viewed as an
interpretative process. The mediator is positioned as integral to the interaction, ‘part of an
interpretive and intersubjective process in which “truth” is co-constructed’ (Rothman, 2014: 442),
modelling reflexivity for the parties.
144
8.5 Locating Practice
In Sections 8.3 and 8.4, the practice of workplace mediation in universities was compared with both
first and second-generation models. It now becomes possible to locate the practice of university
mediators in the context of these models and their epistemic underpinnings in three interim
findings.
1. Practice in British Universities is distinct from the facilitative (problem-solving mode) model
practised in the United States. Such a difference could be attributed to a strategic choice of
technique to fit relational rather than transactional goals. However, examining the ways
university mediators approach interaction suggests a plausible alternative is a difference in
epistemic enactment.
The facilitative model, as the dominant model of mediation practice, has a privileged position. This
absolves it from a need to be explicit in stating its meta-theory; as interviewees explained, you just
need to follow the process. Skilful mediation becomes the ability to make the right choice of
technique in response to interaction. The core of the facilitative model is based on the four elements
of principled negotiation: “interests, not positions”, “separate the people from the problem”,
“invent options for mutual gain” and the use of “objective criteria” (Menkel Meadow, 2006: 485).
Yet these precepts are unrecognised by university mediators and their practice is relational; their
focus is not the problem but the communication between the people. Interaction is not the search
for objective criteria but the construction of intersubjective meaning. University mediators are
positioned between a model acquired in training which is realist and a practice which is
intersubjective and relational.
2. Practice in British universities is relational, intersubjective and co-constructive, sharing
aspects of but distinctive from the transformative model of mediation. A major difference
between the two approaches is that they make different assumptions about the capacity of
humans in conflict to interact. University mediators are prepared to provide structure and
support to parties whereas the transformative model proposes that such support is
unnecessary and, an inappropriate role for the mediator. This discrepancy translates into
differences in the exercise of mediator power and positioning.
The various models of mediation discussed above can now be categorised according to how they
treat interaction, as shown in Table 12. The Transformative Model can be seen as intersubjective
and a co-construction. However, co-construction is between the parties with the mediator sitting
145
outside the interaction as a follower. The Narrative Model can be considered as relational and co-
constructed but not intersubjective as the focus is on structure (the dominant narrative) rather than
agency (the parties). Here the mediator sits within the interaction, leading the process of
deconstruction and reconstruction. The Facilitative Model – in its US problem-solving mode – is
viewed as individualist rather than intersubjective, with the mediator positioned between the
parties enacting neutrality by ‘doing’ reflexivity. Rothman’s Reflexive Mediator – more an invitation
to be reflexive than formal model – is a co-constructive approach that positions the mediator as part
of the interaction.
Table 12 Models of Mediation Practice
Model Intersubjective Co-constructive Mediator Position in Interaction
Transformative Y Y External
Narrative N Y Internal
Facilitative (US) N N Controller
Facilitative (UK uni) Y Y Varies
Reflexive Y Y Internal
The practice of mediation in British universities is intersubjective and co-constructed. However, the
positioning of the mediator varies reflecting disposition and situation. In analysing power in Chapter
4, it was suggested that mediators perform as initiators, promoters or catalysts. Interviewees
described an aspiration to exercise as little power as possible; they are disposed to be initiators. On
occasion the mediator is able to step back fully from the interaction, performing much as a
transformative mediator-follower might. However, if the interaction requires support the mediator
becomes part of the interaction as a promoter. At an extreme, mediators feel an obligation to act as
catalysts, to step in and provide control to keep the mediation on track. Mediators may be disposed
to a minimalist position but necessity, how a mediator needs to act in response to the quality of
interaction, may dictate otherwise and require the mediator to intervene.
Disposition, namely how a mediator would choose to act, is both personal and emergent. Mediators
learn from experience and formulate a style which is personal, or as one interviewee described it,
authentic for them (Carolyn). Interviewees described how with experience their practice had
changed. Practising mediation at first is ‘like learning to drive’ (Diane); intense concentration is
required to implement the practice model acquired in basic training; mediator control is paramount
and neutrality an objective. Thereafter, with experience, interviewees talked about becoming
relaxed about following guidelines (Rose). Mediators gain the confidence to loosen control and let
interaction flow (Erica, David, Nicola); to become ‘more relaxed at letting a situation develop’ which
in turn allows ‘more head space to think about what approach I'll take’ (Diane). What is evidenced
146
here is the emergence of what Kressel terms ‘complex schema’, less reliant on the formal model and
with more nuanced procedural scripts (Kressel, 2013: 726).
This process of learning enables the university mediator to take a path which emerges in practice as
intersubjective and co-constructed, consonant with their meta-theory. However, this introduces a
tension with the original model, most visibly seen in the issue of neutrality. Is it coherent to position
oneself as a co-constructor whilst holding to the premises of neutrality advocated in basic training?
Is it consistent to exercise mediator power in ways which corral or constrain the interaction? More
specifically, is reframing still a legitimate technique and, if so, under what circumstances?
3. Practice in British universities has an individual dimension; each mediator approaches
interaction in ways which reflect their own worldview or disposition. As mediators develop
more complex schema, as their disposition emerges, there is growing tension with the
structure in which they practice.
If individual mediators formulate a personal style which is consonant with their disposition, they also
recognise a tension with the necessities of mediation. They must work with the expectations of the
parties, the community of practice represented by the university mediation service and (typically)
alongside a co-mediator; a tension explored in the second cluster of research questions. It was noted
above that a characteristic of second-generation mediation models is relational depth, but
mediators may feel that the structure within which they operate necessitates a focus on solutions,
to help the parties discover common ground rather than explore differences. One might depict this
as a balloon (of disposition) inflating towards a co-constructive, intersubjective practice within a box
that represents the constraints of structure.
One particular aspect of structure that has been noted in this study is the micro-practices deployed
by mediators. Superficially, these practices tell us how mediation is performed. However, they do
not tell us why these techniques are used, that is, about the underlying meta-theory behind their
deployment. For instance, mediators may use questions to improve their own understanding of the
case, to discover the facts or root cause of conflict. Alternatively, they may use questions to promote
collective understanding or encourage storytelling and invite recognition. As outlined in Section 2.4,
these different uses of questioning represent respectively, a monological and dialogical conception
of interaction which in turn can be linked to a settlement or relational approach to mediation. What
is evidenced in this chapter is the emergence of relational practice. However, emergence is coupled
with the vestiges of micro-practice that operates under a monological conception of interaction.
What the university mediator experiences as relational practice emerges is a dissonance between
147
rival meta-theories, one embedded in the formal model taught in basic training and the other
emerging in practice. Mediation, as evidenced in Chapters 4 and 7, is taught as an uncovering of
interests – part of principled negotiation – but practised as a restoration of communication.
Mediators reported being trained to be in control of the process but are evidently disposed to
practice in a power-with orientation (Chapter 5). When being trained, they are drilled to position
themselves as neutral observers but recognise that they do not stand apart from the interaction.
Table 13 – an updating of Table 2 – shows how micro-practises, power and neutrality can be mapped
to monological and dialogical interaction. In monological interaction, the mediator is detached from
the interaction, an objective observer reading the interaction, seeking facts, before formulating a
course of action. In dialogical interaction, the mediator becomes a co-author alongside the parties
helping to construct meaning. The emergence of practice as relational means a potential mismatch
between micro-practice and meta-theory; mediators disposed to practice relationally but deploying
practises that support a settlement approach. We now turn to a discussion as to how mediators can
address this dissonance and bring coherence to practice.
Table 13 Dissonance in Practice
Monological Dialogical
Approach Settlement Relational
Mediator positioned as
Reader Co-author
Interaction viewed as
Place of experimentation where hypotheses and formulations are tested
Place of relationship
Parties viewed as Single agents Inter-related
Information sought to
Uncover facts Construct meaning
Questions are Solution Focused Promote mediator understanding Seeking the cause of conflict
Interaction focused Promote collective understanding Inviting recognition
Neutrality seen as Simple, mediator as objective observer Nuanced, mediator as participant
Mediator Power Wielding control Ceding control
Joint Meeting viewed as
A perfunctory prelude to private sessions (caucus) The essential core of mediation
8.6 Learning and Integration of Practice
Having analysed how university mediators conceive of interaction, we now examine how they seek
to integrate their practice by learning from experience. A mark of professional competence is the
148
development of one’s own theory of practice (Argyris and Schön, 1974); an integration of theory and
the experience gained in practice. In the literature review, alternative routes to integration utilised
in the field of psychotherapy were outlined (Boswell, Nelson, Nordberg, McAleavey, and Castonguay,
2010). The underlying premise is that the practitioner starts with an initial model or theoretical
framework. Through experience, a practitioner subsequently recognises gaps in the efficacy of their
model, and thus they draw on other models either in whole or part to supplement their practice.
This conception of integration rests on three assumptions: that the practitioner is attuned to their
basic model, is aware of alternative models or techniques and, finally, is engaged in a process of
critically examining their practice for gaps.
As discussed in Chapter 7, the manner in which university mediators are trained means that they
lack an explicit connection with the theory underpinning the mediation model they practice. They
are able to describe their facilitative model in terms of practice, the process they apply and the
techniques they use, but not explicitly in terms of theory. Where thought is given to theory, it is
assumed to be embedded in the process learned in basic training. With one exception, mediators
had no knowledge of other models of mediation. However, university mediators entering the field of
mediation each have a start point in the theory and experience acquired in other fields and roles.
Thus, Lynda acknowledged a contribution from group psychotherapy supplemented by theory
acquired from coaching, whilst amongst the interviewees there was experience of interaction as a
football referee, a magistrate and a Childline counsellor. Learning how to mediate in basic training
becomes a further layer in their personal portfolio.
University mediators do not practice frequently, so they have few opportunities to test the efficacy
of their practice and to identify gaps. However, when they do undertake cases, mediators in the
study revealed they actively seek to learn by way of reflective practice. This is conducted with their
co-mediator, service coordinator or within their mediator group. Two types of questions typify such
reflections: ‘what’ and ‘how’? The former questions allow the less experienced mediator to ask what
they should (or should not) be doing, seeking confirmation that techniques acquired in training have
been correctly applied. They also act as a check on the carry-over of practice from a mainstream role
such as coaching.
‘… We had to probe a bit more. Was it the question I'd asked? Was it the language? Was it
the way I'd said it? We talked around the fact that I was a coach, which is why the first
session I ever did was so difficult because as a coach you're using certain style of questions
and the first stage meeting is just getting the information, isn't it, and probing’ (Marian)
149
More experienced mediators were confident enough to focus on ‘how’ questions: ‘… how did it work
for you, how did you feel it went… was there anything on reflection you would do differently, what
worked really well?’ (Nicola). How questions address micro-practice, examining which techniques
should be used and when they should be deployed. Mediators recognise ‘what’ and ‘how’ type
questions operate at a functional and practical level: ‘we tend to reflect on things from quite a
functional level, what works, what didn't work, do we get the outcome we were hoping to get rather
than on the theoretical backgrounds to it’ (John). Reflections on interaction in mediation are
restricted to questioning how the co-mediation partnership has worked. Such conversations
however have their limits.
‘… the other thing we tend not to do very much is to question how did I do, do you have any
feedback for me? Which is obviously quite an exposing thing to ask, if you don't get the
answer you wanted’ (John)
Professional learning has been conceptualised as taking place at two levels: single loop and double
loop (Argyris, 1991). Reflection, centring on what and how questions, operates as single loop
learning, ‘problem solving, identifying, and correcting errors’ (Cunliffe, 2004: 412). Double loop
learning involves reflexive learning encapsulated by ‘why’ and ‘who’ questions. The first are a form
of practical reflexivity; a testing of taken-for-granted assumptions (Pässilä, Oikarinen, and
Harmaakorpi, 2015) going beyond technique to examine the meta-theory which integrates practice.
Why questions challenge the purpose of any technique and can shed light on the mediator’s
conception of interaction and their role. For instance, one could ask of ground rules, ‘what
constitutes an effective ground rule’, or ‘how to apply them’, but asking an individual mediator ‘why
they use ground rules’ prompts a deeper analysis of beliefs and assumptions.
‘Who’ questions are a form of self-reflexivity; an examination of ‘our own beliefs, values, and so on,
and the nature of our relationships with others, what we say, and how we treat them’ (Cunliffe,
2016: 741). They enable the mediator to consciously examine their role in the interaction and their
relationship to the parties. They also involve a challenge to taken-for-granted assumptions.
Neutrality, for instance, subjected to self-reflexivity, turns from being a given that the mediator must
enact, to an invitation to examine how the mediator positions themselves within the interaction.
Engaging with reflexive questions is unsettling, and deliberately so, as it admits to the possibility of
change; ‘practical reflexivity means unsettling conventional practices’ (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith,
2004: 31). As John’s experience of reflection above illustrates, answers are not always comfortable.
Organisations are said to have an epistemology of learning (Schön, 1995); a way that learning is
150
done. In university mediation practice this stops at reflection (‘what’ and ‘how’ questions). Why
should this be? One possible explanation is pragmatic: there is simply inexperience both at the
individual and organisational level. Seeking to master the basics is a necessary and sufficient level of
learning, especially where a service is effective and practitioners occasional. Reflexivity, opening up
possibilities, may feel an uncertain place whilst still attending to foundations. As Kressel notes,
developing a complex schema brings the challenge of ‘decisional stress’; equipped to adapt to
interaction the mediator must now make choices rather then follow a set script (Kressel, 2013: 726).
An alternate explanation is epistemic. There is a taken-for-granted assumption that what is needed
to be able to mediate effectively is contained in the basic model. New techniques may be added to
practice in an eclectic manner by each mediator, but this can be done without recourse to any
broader meta-theory. What and how questions are necessary and sufficient to master mediation; an
underlying assumption that reflexive practitioners posit as realist:
‘Reflection is a collective rather than primarily individual learning process… Reflection is based on
a realist view of the world, while reflexivity is grounded in constructionist and deconstructionist
view of the world’ (Pässilä, Oikarinen and Harmaakorpi, 2015: 70)
‘Reflexivity is very different from reflection, which can be regarded as a modernist idea that
searches for patterns, logic and order’ (Gray, 2007: 13)
‘… reflective analysis draws on traditional assumptions that there is an objective reality that we
can analyse using logic and theory, critically reflexive questioning draws on social constructionist
assumptions to highlight subjective, multiple, constructed realities’ (Cunliffe, 2004: 214)
To engage in reflexivity is to recognise that what and how questions are necessary but not sufficient.
Why and who questions are required if an epistemic approach that is non-realist is to be
accommodated. As Argyris observes, double loop learning requires a change in thinking; ‘the
cognitive rules or reasoning they use to design and implement their actions’ (Argyris, 1991: 100).
Reflective practice can produce the ‘rule-governed interaction’ of habitual performance but heedful
practice, responding to the complexities of interaction, requires reflexivity.
‘The question becomes what practices allow them to engage in such creative weaving and
improvisation. As a starting point, we would suggest that the practices of ‘‘holding one’s
tools lightly’’ and deconstruction may provide practitioners two important resources to
engage in bricolage’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 521).
151
For university mediators, integration is hindered by three factors. A lack of opportunity to practice;
reflection that is single loop learning and focused on technique; and a lack of theoretical framework
to anchor the integration. University mediators are effectively limited to Assimilative Integration
(Boswell et al., 2010), practice which is rooted in the facilitative model but includes techniques from
other non-mediation sources. Given that theory is individually acquired, it is inevitable that
integration is eclectic and idiosyncratic, with each mediator formulating their practice in different
ways.
8.7 Relieving the Tension
Is such integration problematic and if so how might this improve? On the one hand the practice of
mediation in universities is – according to the accounts rendered by interviewees – flourishing, and
mediators and the services they work within are functioning effectively. Nonetheless, this study has
revealed an underlying tension. Mediators have an ideal of practising in a relational way but are
wedded to techniques that can be used either relationally or in a problem-solving mode. Just
following the process may be effective in developing basic competent practice but mediators go on
to develop more complex practice schema. Unanchored by an explicit grasp of meta-theory,
mediators can unwittingly use techniques or exercise power that is inconsistent with a relational
approach. A prime example, raised in Chapter 5, is the choice of who speaks first in the joint
meeting. Without reflexive practice it is difficult for the mediator to develop a clear concept of their
identity and their position in the interaction; to understand their personal schema and the influence
this has on integration.
Engaging in reflexive practice can lead to clarity about who the mediator is within the interaction
and the role they will play. This enables the mediator to be attuned to their self (knowing
themselves) and the parties (empathising with their attempts to know the self and understand the
other). Introducing a reflexive dimension into interaction enables the reflexive mediator ‘to achieve
a kind of resonance with the disputants… a sympathetic vibration’ with the parties (Rothman, 2014:
447). For the mediator, being attuned to self involves congruence between personal schema and
practice, something which Gaspar describes in her switch from a facilitative to a transformative
model (TM):
‘TM resonated with my worldview and how I experience people as a therapist. I allowed the
‘therapist’ to integrate with the ‘mediator’ and remain separate at the same time’ (Gaspar,
2014: 3)
152
Reflexivity can also be considered to have an ethical dimension; it involves a challenge to self-
identity and a willingness to test assumptions. It is best conducted in a safe supportive space. As
such it parallels mediation practised in a relational approach. If mediators are inviting the parties to
be reflexive, then arguably they have an ethical obligation to be reflexive in their own practice, to
understand themselves and their positioning within interaction.
8.8 Impediments to Reflexivity
A number of barriers exist to reflexive practice. The first is a lack of recognition for the role of meta-
theory. Given that mediation is a part time activity, mediators take a pragmatic view; ‘what I have
learned is effective so why should I change?’ For the least experienced, there is the challenge of
mastering the basics and in any event the theory that is needed is embedded within the model. At
the heart of this antipathy is the philosophical question: is mediation a collection of techniques
ordered into a set process or a meta-theory that provides the basis for practice? In a sense this is a
juxtaposition of the first-generation (facilitative) model and subsequent second-generation models
which are explicit regarding meta-theory; a debate about what drives mediation that continues to
echo within the practitioner community:
‘We are disappointed that our view that sound practice must be based on coherent
underlying theory has not gained wide acceptance in the field’ (Folger and Bush, 2014: 28)
A second impediment is the means of acquiring an understanding of theory. Having outlined a five-
step process much of basic training is subsequently concerned with role play. Continuous simulation
of practice produces mediators who can functionally perform their roles, but who lack a grasp of the
concepts involved:
‘Role-play exercises enhance student motivation when compared with the more traditional
learning approaches of lectures and case studies but do not significantly improve concept
learning’ (Druckman and Ebner, 2013: 62)
This manner of training may assume that reflective practice will augment learning. However, an
improved use of techniques still leaves the mediator without theoretical anchoring. Reflection hones
the development of the habits of good practice and the habitual is somehow comforting, a ‘well-
worn groove’ (John), whereas reflexivity is discomfiting, a challenge to identity. Even so, reflection is
not always a preferred route for learning: a ‘least preferred style’ (Nicola), ‘not a strong point’
(Lynda). Nonetheless, participants in this research readily acknowledged the value of reflecting on
practice and doing so at a level deeper than technique:
153
‘I think it is so powerful. It's really interesting to try and understand well why does it
happen… [However] reflection is one of my least preferred styles, although this [mediation] is
an activity that's pushed me into that more than anything else I think’ (Nicola)
‘I think that it's an opportunity to spend a whole hour talking about one's practice which
would be rare. We don't often get the chance to do, so I find that enjoyable’ (Lynda)
‘It was really interesting; it's very interesting to ask yourself these questions… But, to be
honest, it's interesting having talked some of these things through with you. I'll be more
mindful when I go into the next one about things like flexibility and reframing. I'll be
watching out for it more…’ (Angela)
Reflexive change is a challenge not only for the individual but also the service for which they work
and the co-mediators they work alongside. It requires a change to ‘the cultural grammar of the
community and [to] move the community in a particular direction’(Barge and Little, 2008: 516), and
therefore requires a collective engagement. Mediators need permission to examine the values of
mediation, the ‘…much deeper more intangible value behind mediation that maybe we don't talk
about enough’ (Frank) and challenge its nostrums; for instance, is mediation ‘… a time limited,
solution focused intervention’ (Erica) or a relational process?
8.9 Integrating theory and practice
Mediators are said to have a practical bent when it comes to theory (Macfarlane and Mayer). They
try it out ‘in practice to see if it is really valuable and then translate it into something concrete and
practical’ (2005: 8), a sentiment echoed by Frank when describing his application of new theory to
practice. The research question raised the possibility of social interaction theory impacting on
practice, particularly on consciously integrated practice. What this chapter has demonstrated is that
university mediators have a theory of practice for interaction that is emergent, and best understood
from an epistemological perspective. To support this emergence, and consistent with the co-
constructed intersubjective theory of interaction inferred from practice, reflexive practice has been
proposed; a set of why and who questions that enables the mediator to understand their theory of
interaction and their position within it.
Gaining sufficient insight to be able to develop is a challenge for all professionals as we may lack the
perspective and the context to learn; ‘Tacit knowing that practitioners usually cannot describe (at
least without observation and reflection devoted to that purpose)’ (Schön, 1995: 34). Consequently,
what is proposed by this researcher is a series of focus questions that draw on aspects of interaction
154
revealed in this study. These can be used in two settings: the collective gathering of mediators and
the post-mediation reflective process.
Mediator responses to the interviews showed that even the less experienced can gain from reflexive
process when it connects to practice in ways which mediators can relate to:
‘I have found this really interesting and you've actually given me a lot of food for thought
particularly around...style and values, power of the mediator's role. Yes, it's just been really,
really interesting and it's just given me, like I say, an awful lot of food for thought really.
Because it's funny, you're so busy in your day job and mediation is just another string to the
bow, what you go out and do. I don't really think I've sat back and thought in great detail,
how I do it, why I do it, what the outcomes are. I kind of just go off and take quite a
practitioner's viewpoint. So, I think I might just need to step back from that’ (Rachael)
‘It’s just been really interesting to revisit it all again and to question, question things a lot
more. I think we get bogged down in just the work and the to-do list and you don't have time
to evaluate and reflect. And this has given us the opportunity to do that’ (Sarah)
8.10 The Fourth Chair
The second set of research questions introduces the issue of co-mediation. As described above,
experience enables university mediators to develop a personal style, to enact more complex schema
of practice that deviate from the simple script acquired in basic training. However, this creates a
possible tension between mediators, especially where levels of experience differ.
In Chapter 6, effective co-mediation was seen as being based in trust and having two dimensions,
role trust and relational trust. Role trust, the mutual understanding between co-mediators of what
mediation entails, is secured by mediators engaging in basic training in the facilitative model. Having
a common understanding of techniques and process steps enables the establishment of role trust
even where co-mediators have been trained by different providers as evidenced by David and
Angela. We might speculate, however, that role trust might be under threat where one mediator
had been trained in the facilitative model and another in one of the second-generation models
where meta-theory is made explicit to the trainee practitioner. Role trust underpins habitual
practice.
In universities, relational trust is often underpinned by established partnerships, mediators
becoming extremely familiar with their co-mediators over time. Four of those interviewed had such
experience and spoke of the opportunity to play off each other’s strengths. Confidence in the tacit
155
knowledge of how your partner responds in mediation enables an established pair to move beyond
habitual practice to heedful performance, a focus on the interaction rather than following a script.
Co-mediation is seen by university mediators as an opportunity to perform, with the mediators
enacting collaboration or vulnerability in interaction with each other as a model for the parties.
Disparities in levels of experience in the co-mediated pairing may become apparent to the parties
but present an opportunity to demonstrate the valuing of difference. This practice again represents
a taken-for-granted assumption about the capacity of parties in conflict to interact and the position
that mediators take within the interaction.
Co-mediation is valued by mediators as a means of providing support for each other, within the
process and subsequently in reflective practice. In particular, interviewees spoke of the helpfulness
of having a second perspective, somebody to pick up on something that might otherwise be missed.
However, this emphasis on the mediator as the fulcrum between the parties is at odds with an
intersubjective and co-constructed approach. Moreover, what acts as a supportive cradle for the less
experienced mediator might become a cage that restricts the mediator’s progression along a path of
reflexive personal development.
8.11 Performance, Improvisation and Vulnerability
In Section 2.6, attention was drawn to two theories which conceive of mediator development as a
three-stage process. In stage one, the mediator seeks to master habitual practice, relies on basic
training and adopts simple goals. In stage two, the mediator develops a theory of practice by
reflecting on their experience of mediation. This theorisation is personal and linked to their
individual beliefs and values. This enables the mediator to engage with a more complex set of goals.
Finally, in stage three the mediator progresses to heedful performance where there is mastery in or
with interaction. At this stage there is a bifurcation of practice. One path of heedful performance is
predicated on a monological conception of interaction that, as argued in Section 2.5, maps to a
settlement approach to mediation. In contrast, the second path involves a dialogical conception of
interaction that is relational in approach.
This study, drawing on Goffman’s dramaturgical approach has pointed to mediation as a
performance. Performance takes place at both the habitual and the heedful level. At the habitual
level there is mise-en-scène; the setting, lighting, staging and stage design that frames the mediation
for the parties. This has particular importance for the parties as they come as newcomers to the
performance and their expectations must be shaped. The provision of a safe space – analysed in
156
Chapter 5 – is an example of such stage setting. Mediators perform mediation in ways that maintain
and promote that safe space, primarily from the establishment and maintenance of ground rules.
Where habitual performance sets the stage, heedful performance is a focus on interaction. Heedful
performance can be conducted in ways which support settlement or discourse (Jarrett, 2012). In a
settlement approach, the focus is on finding a solution and principled negotiation proposes that the
route to agreement is by the uncovering of interests. Parties are vulnerable in that they are invited
to reveal interests and expose a negotiation position. Mediators recognise a transactional
vulnerability and respond with the creation of a safe space. In a relational approach the focus is on
the interaction between the parties and the route is via communication and recognition. Parties are
vulnerable in that they are invited to reveal the self. Mediators respond by performing vulnerability,
revealing themselves in an openness to their co-mediator and the parties that was described in
Section 6.7.
In Section 2.2.3 reference was made to intuition, a term used by mediators to describe the basis for
their decision making, and improvisation, a creative way of acting upon intuition. In Section 7.5,
interviewees described their decision making as guided by intuition, reading cues such as body
language to discern patterns and act upon them. Intuition that leads to patterns is habitual, an
ability to skilfully execute the rules and select appropriate interventions. This is spontaneous but
lacking the creativity implied by improvisation.
Where habitual practice elicits a patterned response to interaction, heedful performance represents
a creative improvisatory approach. Once mediators can master habitual practice there is an
opportunity to be creative. In Chapter 7, there is evidence that with experience and the emergence
of a personal style mediators are prepared to move beyond the structures and processes taught in
basic training. A relational performance of improvisation is seen in vulnerability, an articulation of
openness and an invitation to the parties to interact in ways previously blocked by conflict. More
experienced university mediators perform vulnerability as evidenced in Chapter 6. To do so
prioritises the relational over the transactional. Improvisation is however a skill that operates within
a meta-theory or epistemic enactment. As noted in Section 2.2.3, a mediator’s creativity can be
settlement directed, the performance of improvisation eschewing process in favour of outcome,
looking for creative solutions.
What distinguishes heedful monological and dialogical heedful performance is shown in Figure 9.
Where settlement prevails, conflict is seen to be resolved by the uncovering of interests. Parties are
recognised to be vulnerable, but improvisation is focused on outcomes. The safe place created by
157
mediators facilitates the revealing of interests. In a relational approach, mediators perform
vulnerability, revealing their selves. The safe space becomes somewhere the parties are willing to
reveal themselves and recognise the other.
Table 14 Monological and Dialogical Performance
Monological Dialogical
Settlement Approach Relational approach
Improvisation as outcome Improvisation as process
Recognising vulnerability Performing vulnerability
Disclosing interests Revealing self
8.12 Summary
One advantage of the facilitative model is its potential to be used either in a transactional or
relational way. Embedding practice by setting role plays in context – that is, using workplace cases to
train workplace mediators – would seem to be effective in equipping mediators to start practice. As
they gain experience, mediators learn from reflective practice and become more adept at selecting
and utilising technique. All of this is entirely coherent within a realist conception of practice and
professional development. However, the practice of workplace mediation in universities can be
viewed through other epistemic lenses.
The accounts provided by university mediators indicate they had embarked on the development of
more complex schema moving away from the strictures of the formal model. They practiced an
approach which can be seen as intersubjective and co-constructive. This induces a tension between
the unexamined theory embedded in the formal model acquired in basic training which interviewees
espouse and their theory-in-action: how, in practice, they conceive of interaction and their position
within it. As they seek to develop professionally, these mediators have a choice: to focus on
technique through reflective technique or allow for meta-theory and seek a personalised epistemic
clarity in reflexive practice. Proponents of the narrative model may urge us to accept ‘there is no
overarching truth and there are no universal principles, metatheories, or metanarratives’ (Bagshaw,
2001: 217). However, it is still possible to acknowledge the impact of individual meta-theory and
look to produce a coherent integrated practice, an individual style for each mediator.
What is evidenced in this study is the emergence of practice that is relational and dialogical, that
represents a progression from the formal model that occurs over time as mediators gain experience
and a sense of their identity in the role. The mediators who were interviewed had a range of
experience, some with little more than basic training and others who were clearly developing a
158
personalised theory of practice. Figure 9 is a representation of such progression. Mediators move
from basic training, through habitual practice and onwards to heedful performance. Basic training
equips the novice mediator with a formal model that is rooted in monological interaction and a
settlement orientation. The trainee emerges with a set of rules that with practice form the basis for
competent habitual practice. With further experience, mediators become confident to draw on
personal schema to shape their practice and become heedful in interaction. They move from
executing rules to being comfortable to operate with decreasing levels of structure and, a growing
ability to draw on intuition and improvisation.
Figure 9 The Emergence of Heedful Performance as Relational
Settlement Relational
Monological Dialogical
Formal Personal Schema
In this chapter, the practice of university mediators has been identified and analysed as emergent,
relational, intersubjective, and co-constructive. Parallels have been drawn with second-generation
mediation models, but it has been shown where university practice differs. The development arc for
university mediators has been plotted and the reflexive practice that can promote such
development explored. The final chapter of this thesis presents the conclusions of this research,
discusses its implications for practice discussed and suggests possibilities for further study.
Basic Training
Habitual Practice
Heedful Performance
159
Chapter 9 – Conclusions
9.1 Introduction
This research has examined the practice of workplace mediation in universities as performed by 18
relatively inexperienced practitioners. Drawing on data generated through group work,
questionnaire and interview, it has analysed mediators’ practices through the four lenses of power,
theory, goals and co-mediation. This final chapter draws together the main findings presented of the
research, examining these in the light of current knowledge and the research questions. The chapter
concludes with recommendations for practice, future research and a brief reflection.
The premise for undertaking this research was that viewing mediation through the lens of
interaction could advance knowledge of the practice of mediation. This final chapter demonstrates
the importance of understanding interaction for the theoretician and being intentional in interaction
for the practitioner.
9.2 Findings
The findings of this research are collected under three main headings which are explored further to
underpin the argument which is being made.
Finding 1 The first finding of this research is that university mediators have a distinctive
approach to interaction that is relational, intersubjective and co-constructed.
This finding accords with previous research that has demonstrated mediators make a choice
between a relational and a settlement approach to mediation (Kressel and Wall, 2012). A relational
approach is associated with second-generation models of mediation (Kressel, 2007). However,
proponents of these models question whether the facilitative model, rooted in individualist
ideology, can be practised relationally (Bush and Folger, 1994). At issue between these different
views is whether mediation is a set of techniques that are strategically applied – a first-generation
conceptualisation of mediation – or alternatively sits within an overarching meta-theory, a second-
generation conceptualisation. It is argued in this thesis that meta-theory, an epistemic enactment of
mediation that is intersubjective and co-constructed, is a compelling explanation for the relational
practice found in university workplace mediation: a first-generation mediation model can be
practised in a relational approach.
Categorising mediation practice as relational conveys an approach where the mediator’s focus is on
the interaction between the parties rather than the solution to a dispute or conflict (Folger, 2008).
160
Relational practice is frequently linked with dialogical communication, the co-construction of
meaning and an intersubjective process (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2004; Fox, 2007). In contrast
to the control exerted by a mediator engaged in a settlement approach, relational practice may be
viewed as non-directive (Kressel et al, 2015; Folger, 2008).
Differences between models of mediation can be difficult to observe as similar skills are deployed,
albeit for different purposes (Picard and Siltanen, 2013). University mediation shares some of the
attributes of second-generation mediation models, but is distinctive in both its goals and mediator
positioning. For instance, recognition is perceived as an important sub-goal, and empowerment a
possible by-product of university practice; in the transformative model, recognition and
empowerment are twin and primary goals. This distinction was explored in Chapter 8, where
university practice was compared with both first and second-generation models and a map
comparing practice (Table 12) provided.
The approach taken in mediation is rooted in the mediators’ conception of goals: purpose drives
practice (Folger and Bush, 2014; Jorgensen et al., 1999). Moreover, ‘there cannot be a good how to
mediate without knowing what purposes the process is intended to serve’ (Menkel-Meadow, 2016:
24). A settlement approach is predicated on substantive rather than relational goals (Hansen, 2004).
Underpinning the conclusion that university practice is relational, is the finding that mediators
prioritised relational goals over settlement goals such as agreement (Chapter 4). This is further
illustrated by a mediator preference for the metaphor of conversation, a relational approach, over
negotiation, a transactional approach (Chapter 7).
The mediators studied in this research were relatively inexperienced, and so it might have been
expected that their goals were simplified to a primary goal (Wall and Dunne, 2012). Moreover, one
might envisage that primary goal to be agreement, as the ‘most usual performance indicator in
workplace mediation is whether or not an agreement was reached’ (Poitras, 2013: 26). However, the
study found that university mediators adopted goals that are more complex and contingent, where
relational and settlement goals interact. Communication, a relational goal, was the highest ranked
goal but seen as a contingent step to the possible achievement of resolution, as illustrated in Figure
8. Significantly, even the achievement of settlement goals has a relational aspect: mediators viewed
their role as fostering resolution rather than agreement, pointing to a relational perspective where
‘resolution is more in the dialogue than it is in the agreement’ (Lewis and Umbriet, 2015: 10).
The finding that university workplace mediation practice is intersubjective and co-constructed is
supported by the analysis of how mediators exercise power and position themselves within the
161
interaction. This finding was outlined in Chapter 5 and elaborated further in Chapter 8. It was argued
that mediators have a disposition to exercise power in ways which share power within the
interaction rather than control the process. This power-with orientation accords with Habermas’
concept of Communication Action (Finlayson, 2005), fostering collaboration and opening up the
possibility of the integrative outcomes conceptualised by Follett (Feldheim, 2004).
To exercise power-with requires the mediator to make a step change within mediation, as the
process commences with an exercise of power-for. Mediators create a structure for the interaction
by facilitating the construction of a safe space buttressed by ground rules. The need to provide such
structure arises from a worldview of human capacity that is less positive than transformative
practitioners; a legacy of basic training. Working in a more structured way, exercising control, offers
the less experienced mediator the comfort of following the process, but – in an illustration of
emergence – mediators attested to becoming more relaxed about structure as they gained
experience. Whilst mediators may be disposed to share power, any particular case may oblige
mediators to divert from their ideal and to impose or renegotiate structure. This may be seen as
directive and thus, in conflict with a relational approach, but such mediator action is in support of
relational goals – allowing the parties to communicate – rather than transactional goals.
Drawing on metaphors from surface chemistry it was suggested, in Chapter 5, that mediators could
be understood to perform as initiators, promoters or catalysts. Mediators aspire to exercise as little
power as possible; they are disposed to be initiators. On occasion the mediator is able to step back
fully from the interaction, performing much as a transformative mediator-follower might. However,
where the interaction requires support, the mediator becomes part of the interaction as a promoter.
In facilitating the creation of a safe space, the mediator acts as a promoter, exercising power in
pursuit of the process. At an extreme, mediators feel an obligation to act as catalysts, to step in and
provide control to keep the mediation on track. Mediators may be disposed to a minimalist position
but necessity – how a mediator needs to act in response to the quality of interaction – may dictate
otherwise.
The practice of workplace mediation, as revealed by those universities in this study, is relational
although emergent, situational and distinctive from other second-generation models. While it has
been argued in this thesis that university mediation practice is relational, it is overly simplistic to
view matters in purely dichotomous terms, i.e. either relational or settlement. It is better to view
practice as a journey of emergence from habitual practice, a rule-based practice that links to basic
training, to heedful performance, a focus on interaction as shown in Figure 10. Understanding
162
practice as relational has a significance for how mediators develop as professionals. This is discussed
further in Finding 2.
Finding 2 The practice of mediation in universities represents an emergent, relational, second-
generation approach to mediation but arises from the legacy of first-generation
mediation training.
This finding follows from the analysis presented in Chapter 7, where the intersection of mediator
practice and theory was examined. It is evident that mediators have little explicit relationship with
mediation theory, placing a higher emphasis on the mastery of practice. Where mediators did report
drawing on theory, this emanated from fields outside of mediation, either from earlier study or in
other contexts such as coaching. Approaching theory in this manner leads to a personalised, albeit
eclectic, integration of practice. This has implications for co-mediation, discussed below in Finding 3,
and mediator development. On the other hand, the lack of theoretical anchoring found in this study
enables university mediators to confound the expectations of Bush and Folger and practice
mediation in a relational, second-generation approach.
The looseness of theoretical anchoring leading to relational practice, leads to a further question. Is
this the situation in other workplace mediation contexts and practices, i.e. outside of universities? It
might be reasonable to speculate that a relational approach is the norm where similar conditions
prevail; a public sector setting with internal mediators who have received broadly similar training. In
support, it should be noted that the main application for the transformative model, a relational
approach, was in the public sector – the US Postal Service – as is its UK manifestation, a National
Health Service Trust. However, it is not possible to assert with confidence that a relational practice
will ensue in other conditions. HR interviewees in this study with experience of the private sector
attested to a marked difference in culture, with conflict being tackled head on and resolved quickly
without resort to mediation. Where mediators are external to an organisation they may well be
trained and practise as commercial mediators; unfamiliar with staff they may well have a
transactional relationship with the parties. Success for the external mediator may be measured as
delivered agreements rather than the tiered goal of communication that drives university mediators.
Under these circumstances, it is easy to envisage the facilitative model being deployed in settlement
mode when applied in private sector workplaces.
A common assumption – made by interviewees – was that theory is embedded within the practices
and techniques taught in basic training; an attitude reported in earlier research (Macfarlane and
Mayer, 2005). Theory is not completely overlooked within basic training as mediators were able to
163
attest by reference to their manuals. However, recall of specific points such as theories of conflict
was limited; an effect observed in training professionals (Goldstein et al., 2008). This was in contrast
to mnemonics such as DESC and FAIR, which were well remembered. These act to turn declarative
knowledge, ‘knowing about the steps of the mediation process’ (White and Agne, 2009: 85) into
procedural knowledge, enabling the mediator to respond in interaction: ‘what to say and do in a
specific mediation situation’ (White and Agne, 2009: 85). Role plays conducted in basic training
provide a path towards procedural knowledge, providing a store of espoused theory that enables
trainees to commence practice. However, further development awaits experience and learning:
mediators must develop theory-in-action, the tacit knowledge that determines action contingent on
conditions (Argyris and Schön, 1974).
Learning rules, applying rules in role play, adapting them from the experience of mediation, enables
the university mediator to deliver competent habitual practice. However, this is just one step in a
path of professional development. Beyond this stage of development lies the ability to act flexibly, to
be engaged in heedful performance (Barge and Little, 2008). Heedful performance can draw on a
monological (Lang and Taylor, 2000) or dialogical (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000) view of interaction.
Ultimately, as argued in Chapter 8, this is an epistemic choice – a way of viewing mediation and how
it is performed – that is akin to a researcher’s selection of methodology and which draws on the
personal schema of the mediator. However, university mediators lack the knowledge to make this
choice explicitly. Moreover, they are constrained by two further factors: their legacy of basic
training represents a point of departure in learning that is realist and monological; reflective
practice, the means to learn from experience, is similarly realist, focusing on what and how
questions.
In basic training, university mediators are taught to uncover information rather than act as co-
constructors, a key differentiator between the monological and dialogical perspectives that is
described in Chapter 2 and discussed in Chapter 8. Micro-practices such as note taking and
questioning (Chapter 7) are directed towards mediator understanding rather than the parties.
Interpersonal understanding becomes what Broome describes as a product, in contrast to relational
empathy, ‘a tensional, emergent, relational process’ (Broome, 2017: 6). Accordingly, university
mediators (Chapter 7) appear deductive in their decision making, using the information gathered to
formulate hypotheses as to how to proceed. From a first-generation perspective, questions,
reframing and summaries are useful techniques to accomplish the purpose of mediation. However,
from a second-generation perspective, in using these techniques ‘mediators participate in the social
construction of meaning’ (Cobb, 2001: 28).
164
One particular legacy of basic training is the taken-for-granted assumption about interaction that is
contained in neutrality; a realist concept of interaction which situates the mediator as a detached
observer working within a defined structure. Evidence of emergence in practice occurs when such
concepts are challenged and modified. Thus, we find Lynda adopting an inductive approach, making
decisions based on the interaction; Frank re-interpreting neutrality; Michael and Carolyn allowing
parties the choice as to who speaks first in the joint meeting; David and Erica becoming more
comfortable with a less structured approach. Here we see a willingness to improvise, to be creative
in response to interaction, a feature identified in Chapter 7 and analysed in Section 8.11.
What emerges from mediator accounts is a depiction of practice that is relational in enactment.
However, the extent to which any one mediator has travelled along the path from the legacy of basic
training to heedful performance is personal. Individual development can create a tension between
the precepts of the formal (facilitative) model and the personalised theory of practice being
developed by each mediator, particularly where a dialogical approach is emergent. In Chapter 8, the
learning process for university mediators was examined and it was argued that this tension can be
addressed by the use of reflexive practice; a route to personal and community development that
makes explicit the nature of interaction and the mediator’s position within it.
Finding 3 The building, enactment and performance of trust is fundamental to effective co-
mediation.
Co-mediation was employed in four of the five institutions studied and seen as valuable in providing
mutual support and the opportunity to learn from one’s partner. Co-mediation pairs two mediators
with potentially different styles of mediation and raises the issue of how university mediators
perform effectively as a partnership. Mediating with divergent processes is problematic
(Charkoudian and Ritis, 2009) and mediators are advised to choose a partner with a similar vision of
mediation's goal and compatible strategies (Love and Stulberg, 1996). It was found (Chapter 6) that
university mediators have an intuitive rather than explicit understanding of personal style. They
recognise, from observing their partners, that others may practice differently, but have not
examined the drivers behind such difference. Commonly, university mediators have trained as a
cohort enabling them to observe potential partners in role play and subsequently seek to work
alongside those whose style appears compatible. In principle, universities select their pairings for co-
mediation to reflect a balance of experience and gender. In practice, selection is often determined
by availability, the sub-set of mediators willing to mediate. In two of the universities this had led to
established pairings, who were also colleagues in their mainstream roles. They co-mediated together
more frequently and had become familiar with each other’s style.
165
Mediators spoke of simple measures that are used to coordinate activities within their pairings such
as the allocation of tasks in advance. Tasks were readily divided for the initial structured phase of
mediation where, say, one mediator would take notes and the other implemented ground rules.
Thereafter, as the interaction becomes more fluid, mediators recognised the task of coordination
becomes more complex. Mediators relied on formulation, an analysis of the interaction and a
decision on a strategy to follow. However, formulation is the cognition of the individual mediator
and not necessarily shared by their partner. Structure, an expression of personal style, was viewed
as a potential point of conflict since mediators have different dispositions towards structure and a
range of comfort in allowing the parties to interact with greater or lesser control from the mediator.
To surmount these challenges of coordination, mediators relied on role and relational trust.
Role trust, a shared understanding of the purpose of the task to be performed, is an essential
ingredient in team performance (Moldjord and Iversen, 2015). University mediators assume that the
shared experience of basic training leads to a common understanding of goals and strategies. Where
training differs, but is still based on the facilitative model, there remains sufficient commonality for
effective practice as exemplified by the account provided by the Acas trained (solo) mediator paired
with a mediator trained to co-mediate. However, as the analysis of their responses to the
questionnaire revealed (in Chapter 4), understanding of the goals and objectives of mediation is not
identical across the community; the assumption that goals are shared is unarticulated and untested
(Chapter 7).
A common understanding enables university mediators to be confident in the capability of their
partner to perform their role and to complement their own. For inexperienced mediators, there is an
expectation that their partner would utilise the same techniques taught in basic training. As pairings
experience practice, there is a growing recognition of their partner’s cues and a pattern of working
together develops. Role trust leads to habitual practice, the ability to follow the mediation process
competently and is founded on commonalities. Relational trust however, points to heedful
performance, a heightened responsiveness to interaction and difference.
Relational trust between mediators has a particular significance in university mediation as it
underpins the relational approach to mediation. Mediators spoke of modelling behaviour and
attitudes in their partnership. In effect, they perform or enact co-mediation before an audience of
the parties, an echo of Goffman’s dramaturgy (Smith, 2006; Jarrett, 2012), inviting the parties to
interact collaboratively and openly. Where relational trust is high, mediators spoke of vulnerability a
willingness to be open with each other in front of the parties that accords with earlier research
(Moldjord and Iversen, 2015). The performance of vulnerability provides an empathic connection
166
with the parties’ own sense of vulnerability in entering the mediation space. Being open before the
parties, articulating formulations, expressing doubts as to the next intervention is a dialogical
approach, an antidote to the individual mediator acting on a monological understanding. Relational
trust enables mediators to recognise and work with difference arising from an emergent sense of
personal style.
9.3 Research Questions
The research questions in this study were formulated under two themes relating to interaction:
interaction within mediation, and co-mediation – the interaction between mediators. This section
provides the reader with a signposting of where the study has provided answers. The first theme
was explored under a cluster of four questions (RQ1-4):
1. How do mediators conceive of interaction?
2. What theory do mediators draw on to shape their practice?
3. How do mediators make decisions?
4. In what ways might an explicit understanding of Social Interaction Theory contribute to a
mediator developing a consciously integrated, flexible practice?
Mediation is a process of interaction. However, mediators often take interaction for granted; it
becomes simply the medium in which dialogue occurs (Lang and Taylor, 2000: 153). The path to
flexible integrated practice lies in the practitioner being intentional about interaction and the
implications of a relational, dialogical approach to mediation that this study has highlighted in
university workplace mediation. Intentionality is served by the adoption of reflexive practice.
This set of research questions was premised on the assumption that mediators practice in an
unconscious way and that theory – in this case interaction theory – could provide a framework for
the development of coherent practice. Underpinning this line of inquiry was the framework provided
by Kressel which proposes that mediators draw on twin pillars to enact their practice; a formal
model of mediation and their personal schema (Kressel, 2013).
The study has shown (RQ1) that the practice of workplace mediation in universities is relational.
However, the facilitative model can also be practised in a settlement mode. The university mediator
starts with a model that can be enacted either in a relational or settlement mode, but a process of
emergence leads to the former. Emergence sees the tenets of basic training reworked as mediators
gain experience of practice, commencing with a prioritisation of relational goals. What is happening
in emergence, this study demonstrates, is a growing sense of meta-theory, a mediator’s overarching
concept of mediation that facilitates a personal theory of practice. A relational practice of mediation
167
could be attributed to a strategic choice of technique to fit relational rather than transactional goals.
However, as outlined in Chapter 8, examining the ways university mediators approach interaction
suggests a plausible alternative is a difference in epistemic enactment.
The study has shown (RQ2) that university workplace mediators are pragmatists, looking to acquire
the skills to practice mediation but unconcerned with theory. Their initial theoretical framework thus
comprises the theory embedded within the formal model of facilitative mediation encountered in
basic training. This, it was argued in Chapter 8, is realist and, in terms of interaction, monological.
Added to this foundation is theory that mediators acquired in other contexts, experience of
interaction in other non-mediation roles, their beliefs and identity – their personal schema.
One aspect of unconscious practice uncovered in this study is the role mediators ascribed to
intuition in making their decisions (RQ3). This was discussed further in Chapter 8, where intuition
was linked to a habitual patterned response to interaction. However, it was shown that – with
experience – mediators can progress to a heedful relational approach to interaction represented by
improvisation.
The arc of mediator development – outlined in Chapter 2 – is a journey. It has a point of departure,
in basic training which prepares the mediator to practice competently. Mediators initially aspire to
habitual practice; an ability to follow the rules in response to interaction. However, habitual practice
is only a way station en route towards heedful performance; a heightened attention to interaction
that can be either monological or dialogical. Basic training in the facilitative model provides
sufficient theoretical anchoring for the mediator to deliver habitual practice. The theoretical
framework is open enough to allow for the development of meta-theory which sees practice
enacted as relational. However, in contrast to second-generation models, the facilitative model is
not explicit about interaction or meta-theory. The lack of theoretical anchoring provided by basic
training is not problematic when seeking to master basic skills but is a barrier when a mediator seeks
to develop further. Basic training provides a commonality of understanding that enables the practice
of workplace mediation in universities but is limiting when difference and personalisation are
required (Curran et al., 2016: 21). As mediators develop, they must move from implementing rules
such as neutrality to interpreting them as they seek to develop their own personal practice; a
mediator needs to set micro-practice in the context of their own meta-theory. To do so requires
understanding theory and becoming intentional in interaction. This study demonstrates how
reflexive practice can contribute to understanding and heedful performance (RQ4).
168
Mediator learning currently centres on reflective practice, posing what and how questions that focus
on techniques and the mastery of basic skills. This approach leaves the underlying realist
assumptions within basic training unexamined. Consequently, mediators may continue to apply
micro-practises that are in tension with a relational power-with approach to mediation. In the
interviews however, mediators acknowledged the value in examining practice at a level deeper than
technique. In Chapter 8 an alternative, reflexive practice was outlined and illustrated in the use of
why and who questions. Why questions enable underlying or taken-for-granted assumptions to be
challenged and can be utilised to explore further the implications of relational practice or the
monological or dialogical creation of meaning. Who questions assist the mediator to examine their
own role in the interaction, their dispositions to power and structure, and allow them to personalise
their practice.
The second theme of the research – co-mediation – was represented by a cluster of three questions
(RQ5-6):
5. How does co-mediation become effective given differing personal styles?
6. How do mediators coordinate their actions and cognitions?
Co-mediation becomes effective because mediators build and rely upon trust. Role trust underpins
habitual practice and enables the individual mediator to learn by reflective practice. Role trust is,
however, necessary but not sufficient for effective practice, and mediators additionally develop
relational trust. Relational trust allows heedful performance and relational practice and enables the
partnership to learn by reflexive practice.
This set of research questions was premised on the assumption that pairing mediators with differing
personal styles could be disruptive, with mediators pulling the interaction in conflicting directions
and impairing the delivery of mediation. In practice however, whilst tensions can arise between
university mediators, difference in personal style ostensibly has little impact on the practice of co-
mediation in universities. Personal style is largely unexamined by mediators, recognised as
potentially problematic but subsumed, in the first instance, by a reliance on commonality (RQ5).
Shared basic training provides the platform for the establishment of role trust founded on common
assumptions as to the goals and purpose of mediation. Mediators seek to pair with those who they
perceive have a similar style to their own. Coordination of activities is planned in advance.
Interventions that might be unexpected by a partner are avoided; mediators reported a conscious
effort to follow the rules learned in basic training. One of the merits of co-mediation is the
opportunity for apprenticeship (Bowling and Hoffman, 2000), such that the individual is supported
169
as they learn their trade. Reflective practice becomes the means to develop habitual practice.
Subsequent to mediation, pairs of mediators utilise reflective practice to promote learning.
However, this is directed more to an examination of skills rather than the effective working of the
partnership, with reluctance to critique another’s performance.
Habitual practice is however, a constrained enactment of co-mediation. It requires the mediators to
find common denominators, to subordinate individual style to the presentation of a united front.
From a performance perspective, this signals to the parties an invitation to compromise, a
potentially slippery path towards a settlement orientation (Seargeant, 2005: 20), mediation as
reasoned compromise (Menkel Meadow, 2006: 501), as a mid-point between winning and losing
(Bennett, 2014: 3). To perform mediation as compromise undermines its potential for integration
(Kolb, 1995: 340) – the discovery of value in difference – and ‘merely rearranges what already exists;
it produces no new values’ (Follett, 1924: 1).
For the inexperienced mediator, the desire to get the basics right and master habitual practice may
mean that subordinating their style is not viewed as a sacrifice; Sarah for example, becomes the
follower to John’s leader (Chapter 6). However, a danger with an emphasis on commonality is that it
becomes a brake on the individual’s development. The experience of practice allows the emergence
of personal style but there is little opportunity to experiment where the imperative is to stick to a
known process. Accordingly, ambivalence was expressed as to the merits of co-mediation as
mediators gain experience (Erica in Chapter 6).
Fortunately, co-mediation offers the opportunity to perform in ways that recognise difference and
underpin the relational approach practised in universities (RQ6). Experienced mediators spoke of
demonstrating vulnerability and thereby enacting relational trust. This permits the mediator to
develop a personal style which may contrast with their partner but work effectively by
communicating openly in what is a form of dialogical interaction. This performance of relational trust
signals to the parties the value of difference and invites an integrative approach. Relational trust
leads to a type of heedful performance where there is a conscious focus on the interaction between
the mediators. The possibilities for building relational trust are improved where pairings are
established and able to practice together frequently. However, relational trust requires a willingness
to learn that is reflexive, moving beyond the execution of skills to pose why and who questions.
The study identified the regular practice meeting of university mediators as the embodiment of their
Community of Practice. These practice meetings represent an opportunity for mediators to learn
from each other and also to learn about each other. Such learning can foster role trust, creating a
170
clear sense of the tasks that the mediators must perform but may come at the cost of conformity in
practice, a restraint on personal development noted by Erica and David. A potential counterbalance
to this effect is to deploy reflexive practice in the COP as discussed below in Section 9.6.1.
9.4 Limitations and Context
The findings in this research have been developed within the context of the methodology and
analytical framework deployed. The constructivist methodology – outlined in Chapter 3 – means that
data were generated in interaction between researcher and mediator. This allowed interviewees to
both account for and reflect on the messiness of practice. The data generated covered the
mediators’ experience of practice in the round rather than any particular case. Micro-practice,
metaphor, power and goals were examined and interpreted as a means to analyse meta-theory, the
overarching framework which enables the enactment of practice. The findings capture the
emergence of practice for a group of relatively inexperienced mediators; a process of uncovering
personal style or disposition whilst wrestling with the legacy of basic training. This is in contrast to
positivist approaches to mediator research where hypotheses are set and experienced mediators
observed in action, often under controlled conditions. The purposes of mediation are assumed,
taken-for-granted, and research demonstrates how mediators enact micro-practice in pursuit of
meta-theory. A recent study, for example, examines the use of solution-focused questions by
community mediators to steer disputes towards resolution (Stokoe and Sikveland, 2016); a contrast
with this study in that it shows the enactment of the facilitative model in pursuit of settlement.
The finding of relational practice in this study draws on empirical evidence from six universities.
From this limited sample, it is impossible to assert that practice across other universities will be
similar. However, the finding of relational practice in this study is a point of departure in addressing
the research question as to how (interaction) theory can contribute to integrated practice. The claim
to generalise these findings arises from data that represents inexperienced mediators and their
emergent practice. Moreover, the construct of heedful performance as an interaction that can be
either monological or dialogical has relevance for both a relational and a settlement approach to
mediation. It is an invitation for mediators to be explicit in their epistemology and coherent in their
practice but not prescriptive in the path which is chosen.
A point regarding limitations must be made in respect of the statistics presented in Chapter 4.
Clearly the sample size (18) used in this research is low in comparison with the earlier Israeli study
(189) (Nelson, Zarankin and Ben-Ari, 2010) and only a limited number of results (3) were found
significant at the 95% level. However, it should be recognised that these tests were an ancillary part
171
of the research, carried out because the method of data gathering permitted this within the context
of the primary method of interview. The differences found in some gender effects, between this
study and the Israeli study and highlighted in Chapter 4, should therefore be treated as indicative of
the possibility for further investigation.
9.5 Contribution to Knowledge
The finding of the epistemic enactment of the facilitative model in relational practice contributes to
the conceptualisation of mediation, challenging the demarcation between first and second-
generation models of mediation. This finding supports the contention of Bush and Folger (1994) that
meta-theory drives practice. However, it contradicts their assumption that mediators operate solely
in accordance with the meta-theory, or ideology, embedded in the formal model. In this regard it is
confirmation of Kressel’s view that personal schema are influential in the enactment of practice
(Kressel, 2013). Conceptualising mediation as an enactment of meta-theory rather than a collection
of skills and techniques, draws the parallel with the academic researcher where clarity on
methodology should precede the deployment of methods. Thus, the mediator needs to acquire
mediation skills but must deploy these skills in the context of meta-theory in order to bring
coherence to their practice.
The literature suggests that mediators simplify goals into a binary choice between relational and
settlement goals (Wall and Dunne, 2012) as a means of managing complexity. Effectively, the
mediator chooses between a relational or transactional approach. Bush and Folger (1994), in their
transformative model, argue that relational repair must precede any move to agreement and
resolution. The mediator is enjoined to sequential goals. This study, however, demonstrates the
possibility of a third approach, the interconnection of relational with resolution goals. In Section 6.5,
it was found that university mediators have a foundational step of restoring communication – a
relational goal – that can pave the path to further relational gains such as trust and behavioural
change. However, the mutual understanding gained in communication can foster the achievement
of transactional goals, the generation of coping strategies, and the achievement of partial and even
full resolution. This parallel approach to goals utilised in universities draws on Bush and Folger’s
(1994) insight regarding the importance of recognition as an indicator of progress within mediation.
It addresses complexity by conceiving of goals in a contingent connected manner. Mediators can
target communication and then incorporate other goals as the interaction allows and the growth in
recognition signals.
172
The findings regarding mediator development explore the nature of relational practice and the basis
for integration. As shown in Chapter 8, mediators progress to habitual practice and then onward to
heedful performance; the former supported by reflective and the latter by reflexive practice.
Further, the nature of heedful performance has been developed by drawing on two contrasting
theorisations outlined in Chapter 2 (Lang and Taylor, 2000; Bowling and Hoffman, 2000) which lead
respectively to monological and dialogical interaction. As discussed in Chapter 8, monological
interaction prioritises the individual (Habermas, 1970), the voice of the other is not respected
(Winslade, 2002) and maps to a settlement approach to mediation. In contrast, dialogical interaction
emphasises the intersubjective, the joint construction of meaning and a relational approach.
In practice, as the study demonstrates, university mediators experience dissonance between what is
acquired in basic training – the formal model – and what is required in relational practice.
Techniques such as questioning and precepts such as mediator control are deployed differently in
monological and dialogical interaction as illustrated by Table 14. The study shows that for the
university mediator, relational practice is emergent rather than fully developed. Mediators are on a
path of transition to relational practice; in Kressel’s (2013) terms, they are developing personal
schema which lead to relational practice. However, there are still vestiges of the formal model in
evidence and mediators lack the reflexive practices that would aid their understanding and
development of relational practice. As illustrated in Figure 10, emergence is a process whereby the
mediator transitions from a formal model which is settlement based and predicated on monological
interaction to a personalised theory of practice which is relational and dialogical.
The study provides a further framework for understanding habitual and heedful performance by
examining mediator decision making: what alerts the mediator to respond to interaction and how
they respond. In Chapter 7 it was shown that university mediators rely on intuition to trigger their
decision making, using their experience to read cues such as body language and be alerted to the
need for action. The use of the term intuition by mediators captures the spontaneous, unreflective
process of responding to interaction that is noted in mediation literature (Lang and Taylor, 2000).
Intuition however, as discussed in Section 8.11, can lead to a patterned response to interaction
where mediators look to find the appropriate technique or intervention and apply this. The
interaction becomes a place of experimentation where hypotheses are tested. Relying on the
mediator’s unconscious cognitions in this manner is a monological approach to interaction and
characterises habitual practice. Intuition can nonetheless, lead to improvisation, a flexible response
to interaction which moves beyond the norms and structures laid down in basic training. This
flexibility in response is evidence of interactional competence, a fluency in interaction that
173
characterises heedful performance. Improvisation is a skill however, that operates under a meta-
theory. It can be deployed in pursuit of a relational-dialogical or a settlement-monological approach
as illustrated by Figure 9.
This study has found evidence of both habitual patterned and heedful improvisatory performance.
Less experienced mediators strive for competence in applying the rules of mediation – habitual
practice – whereas more experienced mediators seek a competence in interaction, heedful
performance. Evidence of the progress to heedful performance was found in preparedness to work
with less structure and yield control (Chapters 5 and 6) and a willingness to take an inductive
approach to interaction (Chapter 5). Habitual practice is a pre-cursor of heedful performance as
illustrated by the mediator’s response to vulnerability that is discussed in Section 8.11. All mediators
spoke of the creation of a safe space as being an essential step. This recognises the parties as
vulnerable and creates the conditions for habitual practice. More experienced mediators spoke of
being open with the parties, demonstrating relational trust by articulating their cognitions. In doing
so mediators go beyond recognising vulnerability to perform vulnerability; they enact mediation as
relational heedful performance.
The study makes a contribution to the practice of mediation by setting out how reflexive practice
can enable embedded, taken-for-granted, assumptions to be challenged (why questions) and the
mediator to consider explicitly their role in interaction (who questions). Reflexive practice is of
particular importance when the enactment of mediation is relational. Reflective practice assumes an
objective reality, a representational rather than a relational view of knowledge (Keevers and
Treleaven, 2011). A relational dialogical concept of interaction calls for reflexivity as a matter of
congruity, the mediator being relational in both practice and learning. An example of how this might
be implemented in university practice is provided below. However, it is argued that accessing
learning by reflexive practice is helpful more generally in the field of mediation and should be of
interest to mediators who wish to progress beyond habitual practice. As second-generation
proponents assert: ‘mediators need a theory of human meaning making and human interaction to
guide them as they interact with the disputants’ (Gaynier, 2005: 404).
Finally, the findings on co-mediation make a contribution to an area which has received scant
attention in the literature. Examining co-mediation from the perspective of interaction has allowed
attention to be paid to the performance of mediation. In doing so, it has shown how trust is
developed between mediators and how relational trust underpins a heedful, relational performance
of mediation. Moreover, it has demonstrated how mediators working in tandem can position
practice as relational in their performance of vulnerability. Adopting co-mediation may originally
174
have been conceived as a mutual support for less experienced mediators (Chapter 6) or a second
listening ear. However, these findings reveal that equally important is the opportunity for
performance that is afforded by a second member of the cast who can be a foil for improvisation.
9.6 Implications for Practice
9.6.1 Mediation in universities
This research has focused on university mediators who are in the early stages of their development.
Interviews have highlighted their endeavours to enact habitual practice based on what was acquired
in initial training. Accounts of practice attest to the emergence of a personalised theory of practice,
and this has created certain tensions with the tenets of basic training; an impetus for learning and
development. Moreover, interviewees expressed an interest in continuing to practise, to gain more
experience so as to become more accomplished. To develop further will however require both
individual and collective will and action. Any plan for development must recognise that the excellent
practitioner is ‘lodged in a community of practitioners who through experiential learning…
continually lives out and improves practice’ (Benner, 2000: 9). The Community of Practice – in the
first instance the mediator group at each university – is important because it sets the framework for
how mediation is performed at the university: ‘An individual’s work is informed, in part, by the
Discourses that inform a tradition or community of practice’ (Barge and Little, 2008: 513). This is
particularly important where mediation is practised as co-mediation since it underpins role trust by
clarifying what is expected of the partnership in mediation. Individual development is beneficial, but
a lasting benefit occurs when learning is embedded in the community: ‘Critical reflection must be a
social act of collective empowerment if it is to move beyond personal to social transformation’ (Gray,
2007: 497). Based on the results of this study it is suggested that such learning is done in a relational
and reflexive way within the practice group at each university.
Three aspects of this study could form the basis for the practice group to draw on the findings of this
research. Firstly, the goals that define the approach taken in mediation, on the premise that purpose
drives relational practice. Secondly, the meta-theory that represents the enactment of a relational
approach, shaping the use of micro-practice and the positioning of the mediator in interaction.
Thirdly, the opportunity that co-mediation affords for the performance of mediation.
This research has demonstrated that university mediators have complex interconnected goals that
prioritise relational aspects such as communication and recognition. These are distinct from the
settlement related goals which originate in principled negotiation and are embedded in basic
training. A re-evaluation of goals within the practice group would make explicit this transition in
175
goals and grant permission, particularly for the less experienced mediator, to act on relational goals.
It would additionally contribute to a shared set of role expectations which supports effective co-
mediation. Chapter 4 provides a number of resources that can aid the group to reflect on goals:
Section 4.3.2 contains the survey data relating to goal prioritisation whilst Section 4.4 explores
broader goals such as communication, agreement and interests.
The study has found that university mediators are willing to draw on theory but only insofar as it
supports practice. Proposing that practice groups look at meta-theory might therefore be better
labelled as inviting mediators to be intentional in interaction, and to be coherent in relational
practice. Accordingly, it is suggested that learning is focused on two aspects of practice: mediator
power and the purpose of information. Mediator power – detailed in Chapter 5 – is essential to the
conduct of mediation but can be enacted in ways which emphasise mediator control or support a
power-with relational approach; mediators were found to act as initiators, promoters or catalysts.
One touchstone was the question of which party speaks first in the joint meeting. Here we found a
range of responses, from enacting what had been taught in basic training – mediator choice –
through to trusting the parties.
Examining mediator power helps the group to understand the difference between a relational and a
transactional or settlement approach to mediation. Looking at a mediator’s use of information
clarifies the difference between a monological and dialogical concept of interaction. As illustrated in
Table 14, in a monological approach information is sought by the mediator to uncover facts and
questions are directed to mediator understanding. In a dialogical approach, information is sought to
construct meaning and questions promote collective understanding and recognition.
The study has shown that co-mediation is more than a support mechanism for the less experienced
mediator; it is an opportunity for performance that underpins relational practice. The study has
found that role trust is essential in co-mediation and leads to habitual practice, but that relational
trust is necessary for effective heedful performance. Further, the study has identified that
experienced co-mediators perform vulnerability as an enactment of relational trust. It is suggested
therefore that the practice group explore the concept of relational trust, and the performance of
vulnerability as a means for supporting the development of co-mediating teams.
A reflexive approach requires examining taken-for-granted assumptions which presents a challenge
at two levels: firstly, willingness by the individual and COP to allow a critical approach; and secondly,
making explicit the assumptions that drive practice, for example the implications for power that flow
from a mediator’s choice of positioning in interaction. In Chapter 7, this research used metaphor to
176
examine the theory behind practice; in particular, the significance of using the metaphor of
conversation rather than negotiation to describe practice. In collective learning, metaphors can
represent a gentle point of departure, a means of disarming taken-for-granted assumptions, as a
‘powerful medium for presenting ideas not available through rational discourse’ (Gray, 2007: 506).
Paralleling the mediation process, the use of metaphors in group work creates a safe space for
discussion and co-construction.
How might this work? In one recent CPD session with community mediators, this researcher asked
the mediators, working in pairs, to come up with a metaphor they might use to explain mediation to
a party with no prior experience of the process. This input was then gathered and examined as a
group exercise. To illustrate, one contribution was mediation as a ‘bridge’. This metaphor was then
unpacked by asking the group to articulate the implications for practice of viewing mediation as a
bridge. The ensuing discussion became a collective and intersubjective search for meaning; a settling
on an objective view of community practice that is possible ‘when multiple perspectives from a
community are made public for articulation and evaluation’ (Benner, 2000: 8).
Using metaphor in this way appeared effective but requires a degree of structure to provide focus
and enhance learning. Behind the exercise should be a desire to examine the goals of mediation, or
mediator power, or the nature of interaction. For example, asking the group to come up with a
metaphor to explain the role of the mediator elicited ‘Helper’, ‘Clarifier’, ‘Facilitator’, ‘Listener’ and
‘Go-Between’; all terms which could be further explored in the context of a settlement or relational
approach to interaction.
To emphasise the collective should not however detract from encouraging individual learning. It is
recommended therefore that mediation services consider adopting the Reflective Observer
approach, as described in Chapter 3. Here the observer makes notes on mediator behaviour during
the course of a mediation and then facilitates a post-case discussion. This can be used as a focused
means of social learning that can recognise that individuals have different rates and directions of
emergence.
9.6.2 Wider mediation practice
This study has found that the facilitative model is practised in a relational, dialogical approach by
relatively inexperienced mediators practising in the university workplace. This shows that the
practice of mediation is not wholly determined by the formal model and opens up the possibility for
re-examining how mediation is enacted in other contexts. The study has also plotted a course of
mediator development from habitual practice to heedful performance, demonstrating the use of
177
reflexive practice as a tool for learning and development. Reaching heedful performance, an artistry
in interaction that Lang and Taylor (2000) advocate, requires bringing a coherence to practice –
aligning micro-practice with meta-theory – irrespective of the enactment of mediation as relational
or settlement. Finally, the study has shown that co-mediation provides the opportunity for the
performance of mediation particularly where a relational approach is adopted. These findings
provide a number of lessons that have resonance in the wider mediation community.
Commercial mediation, as outlined in Chapter 8, is the prime example of the facilitative model being
deployed in settlement mode. This has been ascribed to the parties wanting a cheap, quick means of
bringing a dispute to an end rather than relational repair or even creative solutions (Genn, 2012).
Where judges take on the role of mediator in UK employment tribunal cases there is perhaps
inevitably an emphasis on settlement where the aim is to avoid the necessity for a hearing (Urwin,
Latreille and Karuk, 2012). In SEN mediation, the local authority involved is looking for evidence to
justify a decision taken in accordance with a statutory framework (CEDAR, 2017), drawing the
process to a problem-solving evidenced based orientation.
This current research has two potential contributions to the enactment of the facilitative model as
settlement. Firstly, that a relational approach does not preclude settlement. As demonstrated by
university mediators, it is possible to use contingent goals that can encompass both transactional
and relational ends. This opens up the possibility for a richer return from the use of mediation even
where the perceived pressing need is for resolution. Taking a relational approach may challenge
professional notions of the purpose of mediation but provides a process that can deliver a wider
array of outcomes that may more fully meet the needs of the parties. A relational approach can
redress a prioritising of legal remedies such as a payment of monies that a court might order over
extra-legal provisions such as apologies and explanations that parties value; a phenomenon that is
prevalent in the mediation of personal injury cases (Relis, 2009). A relational approach acknowledges
the contribution of second-generation theorists as to the importance of the relational whilst building
on the established facilitative model.
Secondly, there is value to the practitioner in being explicit about meta-theory and interaction. The
study has shown that uncovering meta-theory can enable the mediator to bring coherence to their
practice by being intentional in their interaction within mediation – understanding what they seek to
achieve in interaction and aligning their micro practice accordingly. A coherent integrated practice
paves the way to heedful performance even where mediation is settlement-monological driven.
Conceiving mediation as framed by meta-theory rather than a set of micro-practices strategically
applied, which is the conclusion of this study, is arguably too complex a notion for the novice
178
mediator straining to master habitual practice. However, it should become a topic to be explored in
subsequent professional development where the mediator has gained experience and seeks to
improve their fluency in interaction.
Co-mediation is seen to provide support for the less experienced mediator, aid reflective practice,
and offer cultural diversity. It also has the potential to generate conflict within the co-mediation
team and require more effort to ensure role trust, a commonality of expectation about the norms
and purposes of mediation. These are effects articulated by university mediators and echoed in the
literature (Love and Stulberg, 1996). With coordination, division of tasks and the establishment of
trust co-mediation, can – to echo Love and Stulberg – demonstrate that two heads are better than
one. However, this study demonstrates that co-mediation has a more creative role to play when
viewed as performance. This insight has two applications. Firstly, in situations where co-mediation is
currently practised such as community and workplace mediation, mediators should be encouraged
to explore mediation as performance; in particular the performance of vulnerability as evidenced in
the practice of more experienced university pairings. Secondly, in situations where co-mediation is
currently not the norm but a relational approach is required, where for instance workplace
mediation is provided by external rather than in-house mediators, cost grounds may dictate solo
mediation (Poyntz, 2012). Here procurers of mediation might usefully reflect on the additional
benefits, identified in this study, that co-mediation can provide.
9.7 Recommendations for Future Research
This study has contributed to the knowledge of how mediators develop their practice in the initial
stages. It has formulated a reflexive process whereby mediators can progress into heedful practice
that is relational and dialogical. However, what is missing is a longitudinal study that could track the
effect of reflexive practice over time for both the individual and the COP. Such a study could draw on
elements of the recommendations for practice (above) and form an action research project in a
selected university.
Further, a theme arising from the findings of this research is that while practitioners are unanchored
by explicit theory, they are equally not completely beholden to the formal facilitative model and the
assumptions that are made about its enactment. Meanwhile, it has been noted above that the
relational practice of mediation found in this study may not be replicated in other situations, either
in other universities or in the wider field of workplace mediation. This raises two possibilities for
further research. Firstly, to investigate a university service which has a settlement enactment of the
facilitative model. Secondly, to work from the premise that examining interaction explicitly through
179
a reflexive lens can lead to a relational enactment of mediation in non-workplace disputes. One
potential area, familiar to this practitioner and outside the field of workplace mediation is the field
of Special Education Needs. This operates under the shadow of a tribunal process which exerts a
strong settlement pull on the mediation process. However, these disputes cannot be considered
wholly transactional as the parties to the dispute – school, local authority and parents – must
continue to interact with each other in the future. Mediators from this field are drawn from
commercial, family, workplace and community mediation, each adopting disparate practices of the
facilitative model.
9.8 Reflections
One of the concerns in this research was to produce findings that had salience for both academia
and the practice community. To conduct research that is practitioner relevant (Kressel, 2013) but
which also provides the opportunity to extend theory by learning from practice. This research
started from the supposition that looking at interaction in mediation might yield insights. It closes by
concluding that a focus on interaction in mediation can be effective in extending theoretical
understanding and yet offer, in reflexive practice, value to the practitioner.
Theory is said to be ‘observing, looking at, or viewing things in a thoughtful manner’ (Broome, 2017:
5). Things in the mediation context are micro-practices or the collection of such practices into a
mediation model. Research into such things enables an understanding of how a mediator does or
should execute practice. This is useful in supporting habitual practice but, operating under a set of
unexamined organising assumptions, limiting. The practitioner is crammed into the mould
prescribed by the researcher. Categorising mediators by model or shedding light on micro practice
can only take the practitioner so far.
This research has sought to go further, to examine what lies behind practice and theory, the meta-
theory behind theory. This has opened up horizons for both researcher and practitioner to gain an
understanding of mediation that is wider than any one model. Broome’s ‘thoughtful manner’ applied
in this research arises from inductively interrogating practice to reveal meta-theory. Further, the
practitioner has been offered a thoughtful manner to heedful performance in reflexive practice and
relational trust.
I conclude this thesis by noting that I have gained as a practitioner in the course of this research. I
have been spurred to be reflexive in my practice and interrogate my experience, case by case,
against the theoretical framework employed in developing these findings. I end with a better
understanding of how I practise and how my style varies in the several fields in which I mediate. In
180
particular, the concept of a monological or dialogical approach to interaction is helpful in
understanding why colleagues practice in different ways. As a consequence, I am now enabled to
explore the development of relational trust as I co-mediate. Using the lens of interaction I am
equipped to query my positioning and use of power. I aim to learn more of my own theory of
practice in the ongoing pursuit of heedful practice.
181
Bibliography
Aguinaldo, J. P. (2004) ‘Rethinking Validity in Qualitative Research from a Social Constructionist Perspective : From Is this Valid Research ? To What Is this Research Valid for ? Rethinking Validity in Qualitative Research from a Social Constructionist’, The Qualitative Report, 9(1), pp. 127–136.
Allport, L. (2015) Exploring the common ground in mediation. University of Birmingham.
Andrews, T. (2012) ‘What is Social Constructionism ?’, The Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), pp. 39–46.
Argyris, C. (1991) ‘Teaching Smart People How to Learn’, Harvard Business Review, 69(2), pp. 99–109. doi: 10.1162/152417302762251291.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Astor, H. (2007) ‘Mediator Neutrality: Making Sense of Theory and Practice’, Social & Legal Studies, 16(2), pp. 221–239. doi: 10.1177/0964663907076531.
Avruch, K. (2003) ‘Context and Pretext in Conflict Resolution’, Journal of Dispute Resolution, pp. 353–365.
Bagshaw, D. (2001) ‘The three m’s—mediation, postmodernism, and the new millennium’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 18(3), pp. 205–220. doi: 10.1002/crq.3890180303.
Baker, S. E. and Edwards, R. (2012) ‘How many qualitative interviews is enough ?’, National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper, pp. 1–42. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Banks, L. and Saundry, R. (2010) ‘Mediation – a panacea for the ills of workplace dispute resolution? A comprehensive review of the literature examining workplace mediation.’, in iRowe Research Paper No. 1.
Barge, J. K. and Little, M. (2008) ‘A discursive approach to skillful activity’, Communication Theory, 18(4), pp. 505–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00332.x.
Baylis, C. and Carroll, R. (2005) ‘Power issues in mediation’, ADR Bulletin, 7(8). Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol7/iss8/1.
Benner, P. (2000) ‘The roles of embodiment, emotion and lifeworld for rationality and agency in nursing practice’, Nursing Philosophy, 1(1), pp. 5–19. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-769x.2000.00014.x.
Bennett, T. (2014) ‘Workplace mediation in universities’, Personnel Review, 43(5), pp. 1–18.
Bingham, L. B. (2012) ‘Transformative Mediation at the United States Postal Service’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), pp. 354–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00112.x.
Blumer, H. (1986) Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Univ of California Press.
Bollen, K. and Euwema, M. (2013) ‘State of the Art Workplace Mediation: An Underdeveloped Research Area’, Negotiation Journal, (July 2013), pp. 329–353.
Bollen, K., Ittner, H. and C. Euwema, M. (2011) ‘Mediating Hierarchical Labor Conflicts: Procedural Justice Makes a Difference—for Subordinates’, Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(5), pp. 621–636.
182
doi: 10.1007/s10726-011-9230-1.
Bond, G. (2013) ‘Mediation and culture: The example of the ICC international commercial mediation competition’, Negotiation Journal, 29(3), pp. 315–328. doi: 10.1111/nejo.12027.
Borton, I. M. and Paul, G. D. (2015) ‘Problematizing the Healing Metaphor of Restorative Justice’, Contemporary Justice Review, 18(3), pp. 257–273. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2015.1057704.
Borton, I. M. and Paul, G. D. (2017) ‘A mixed-methods analysis of mediator socialization through training’, International Journal of Conflict Management, pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2017-0019.
Boswell, J. F., Nelson, D. L., Nordberg, S. S., McAleavey, A. and Castonguay, L. G. (2010) ‘Competency in integrative psychotherapy: perspectives on training and supervision.’, Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(1), pp. 3–11. doi: 10.1037/a0018848.
Bowling, D. and Hoffman, D. A. (2000) ‘Bringing peace into the room: how the personal qualities of the mediator impact the process of conflict resolution’, Negotiation Journal, 16(January), pp. 5–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00199.x.
Brooks, J. and King, N. (2014) ‘Doing Template Analysis: Evaluating an End of Life Care Service’, in Sage Research Methods Cases. Available at: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/19707 (Accessed: 14 August 2014).
Broome, B. J. (2017) ‘Negotiating the Nexus : Symbiotic Relationship of Theory and Practice in Conflict Management’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12105.
Broughton, A. and Ledermaier, S. (2014) An evaluation of the impact of the internal workplace mediation training service. 07.
Budd, J. W. and Colvin, A. J. S. (2014) ‘The Goals and Assumptions of Conflict Management in Organizations’, in Roche, W. K. and Teague, P. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Conflict Management in Organizations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–31. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199653676.013.0001.
Budd, J. W., Colvin, A. and Pohler, D. M. (2017) ‘Advancing dispute resolution by unpacking the sources of conflict: Toward an integrated framework’, in Conflict and its resolution in the changing world of work: A conference and special issue honoring David B. Lipsky, pp. 1–41. Available at: http://digitialcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/lipskycrconference.
Bush, R. A. B. (2008) ‘Staying in orbit, or breaking free: The relationship of mediation to the courts over four decades’, North Dakota Law Review, 84, pp. 705–768.
Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (1994) The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (2012) ‘Mediation and Social Justice : Risks and Opportunities’, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 27(1), pp. 1–52.
Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (2013) ‘Response to Condlin’s critique of Transformative Mediation’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 149(1997), pp. 231–242.
Bush, R. A. and Folger, J. P. (2012) ‘Mediation and Social Justice: Risks and Opportunities’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 27, pp. 1–52.
183
CEDAR, C. for E. D. A. and R. (2017) Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Disagreement Resolution Arrangements in England. Available at: ment_data/file/603487/CEDAR_review.pdf.
Charkoudian, L. (2012) ‘Just My Style: The Practical, Ethical, and Empirical Dangers of the Lack of Consensus about Definitions of Mediation Styles’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), pp. 367–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00113.x.
Charkoudian, L. and Ritis, C. (2009) ‘Mediation by any other name would smell as sweet—or would it? The struggle to define mediation and its various approaches’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(3). doi: 10.1002/crq.
Charon, J. M. (2009) Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Prentice Hall.
Chilton, S., Cuzzo, W. and Stalzer, M. (2005) ‘Habermas’s theory of communicative action as a theoretical framework for mediation practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(3), pp. 325–348. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.106/abstract (Accessed: 29 April 2014).
Cobb, S. (2001) ‘Creating sacred space: Toward a second generation dispute resolution practice’, Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(4), pp. 1017–1034.
Coben, J. R. (2000) ‘Mediation’s dirty little secret: Straight talk about mediator manipulation and deception.’, Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Employment, 2(4), pp. 4–7. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1923951.
Coben, J. R. (2004) ‘Gollum meet Smeagol: A schizophrenic rumination on mediator values beyond self-determination and neutrality’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2), pp. 65–86.
Coleman, P., Kugler, K., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Nowak, A. and Vallacher, R. (2012) ‘Getting down to basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations’, Negotiation Journal, 28(1), pp. 7–43. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00324.x/full (Accessed: 6 January 2014).
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mitchinson, A. and Foster, C. (2013) ‘Navigating conflict and power at work: the effects of power and interdependence asymmetries on conflict in organizations’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(10), pp. 1963–1983. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12150.
Colling, T. (2004) ‘No claim, no pain? the privatization of dispute resolution in Britain’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 25(4), pp. 555–579. doi: 10.1177/0143831X04047159.
Colvin, A. J. S. (2012) ‘American workplace dispute resolution in the individual rights era’, International journal of human resource management, 23(3), pp. 459–475.
Condlin, R. J. (2013) ‘The curious case of transformative dispute resolution: An unfortunate marriage of intransigence, exclusivity, and hype’, Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., 14, pp. 621–681.
Cooley, J. W. (2007) ‘Mediation , Improvisation , and All That Jazz’, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2007(2), pp. 327–343.
Cooper, M. and McLeod, J. (2010) Pluralistic counselling and psychotherapy. Sage Publications Ltd.
Costantino, C. (2009) ‘Second Generation Organizational Conflict Management Systems Design: A Practitioner’s Perspective on Emerging Issues’, Harv. Negot. L. Rev., 1, pp. 81–100. Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/haneg14§ion=6 (Accessed: 27 July 2014).
184
Coulter, J. (1975) ‘Perceptual Accounts and Interpretive Asymmetries’, Sociology, 9(3), pp. 385–396. doi: 10.1177/003803857500900301.
Craib, I. (2011) Anthony Giddens. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Crossley, N. (1996) Intersubjectivity : The fabric of social becoming. Sage.
Cunliffe, A. (2004) ‘On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner’, Journal of Management Education, 28(4), pp. 407–426. doi: 10.1177/1052562904264440.
Cunliffe, A. (2010) ‘Crafting Qualitative Research: Morgan and Smircich 30 Years On’, Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), pp. 647–673. doi: 10.1177/1094428110373658.
Cunliffe, A. and Easterby-Smith, M. P. V. (2004) From reflection to practical reflexivity: Experiential learning as lived experience. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Available at: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/46281.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2016) ‘“ On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner ” Redux : What Does It Mean to Be Reflexive ?’, Journal of Management Education, 40(6), pp. 740–746. doi: 10.1177/1052562916668919.
Cunliffe, A. L. and Scaratti, G. (2017) ‘Embedding Impact in Engaged Research: Developing Socially Useful Knowledge through Dialogical Sensemaking’, British Journal of Management, 28(1), pp. 29–44. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12204.
Curran, D., Barry, B., Bouchier, M., Coakley, A., Dillon, J., Joyce, C. and Murray, G. (2016) ‘Shaping the Agenda 2 : Implications for Workplace Mediation Training , Standards and Practice in Ireland’, in Kennedy Institute Workplace Mediation Research Group.
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. 2nd edn. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
Dennis, A. and Martin, P. J. (2005) ‘Symbolic interactionism and the concept of power.’, The British journal of sociology, 56(2), pp. 191–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00055.x.
Denzin, N. K. (2001) ‘The Interpretive Point of View’, in Interpretive Interactionism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, pp. 27–56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984591.n2.
Dick, P. (2004) ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, pp. 203–214.
Dickens, L. (2014) ‘The Coalition government’s reforms to employment tribunals and statutory employment rights-echoes of the past’, Industrial Relations Journal, 45(3), pp. 234–249. doi: 10.1111/irj.12055.
Dignan, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G., Shapland, J. and Sorsby, A. (2007) ‘Staging restorative justice encounters against a criminal justice backdrop: A dramaturgical analysis’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(1), pp. 5–32. doi: 10.1177/1748895807072474.
Doherty, N. and Guyler, M. (2008) The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict resolution: rebuilding working relationships. Kogan Page.
Douglas, K. (2007) ‘Mediation and improvisation: Teaching mediators to improvise the storylines of mediation’, Murdoch University eLaw J., 14(2), pp. 133–147. Available at:
185
http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/elajrnl14§ion=28 (Accessed: 19 May 2014).
Douglas, S. (2008) ‘Neutrality in mediation: A study of mediator perceptions’, Queensland U. Tech. L. & Just. J., pp. 139–157. Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/qutlj8§ion=12 (Accessed: 16 October 2014).
Druckman, D. and Ebner, N. (2013) ‘Negotiation Education’, Negotiation Journal, (January), pp. 61–92.
Ebner, N. and Parlamis, J. (2017) ‘Weaving Together Theory, Research, Practice, and Teaching: A Four-dimensional Approach to Negotiation and Conflict Management Work’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12107.
Eccles, J. S. and Wigfield, A. (2002) ‘Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.’, Annual review of psychology, 53, pp. 109–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Feldheim, M. A. (2004) ‘Mary Parker Follett lost and found - again, and again, and again’, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 7(3), pp. 341–362. Available at: http://elibrary.johnsonu.edu:2068/docview/212047412/fulltextPDF/1393BBED398509D6F2/1?accountid=34777.
Feuille, P. and Kolb, D. M. (1994) ‘Waiting in the Wings: Mediation’s Role in Grievance Resolution’, Negotiation Journal, 10(3), pp. 249–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00025.x.
Finlayson, J. G. (2005) Habermas: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Fisher, J. and Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2017) ‘Educating Negotiators : Using Theory , Practice , Case Studies , and Simulations in an Integrated Learning Experience’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, pp. 1–20. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12104.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1997) Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In. Random House Business. Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Without/dp/1844131467 (Accessed: 11 November 2013).
Folger, J. and Bush, R. A. B. (2014) ‘Transformative Mediation : A Self-Assessment’, International Journal Of Conflict Engagement And Resolution, 20(2), pp. 1–34.
Folger, J. P. (2008) ‘Harmony and Transformative Mediation practice: Sustaining ideological differences in purpose and practice’, North Dakota Law Review, 84, pp. 823–860.
Folger, J. P. and Bush, R. A. B. (2005) ‘A response to Gaynier’s “Transformative mediation: In search of a theory of practice”’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 123–127. doi: 10.1002/crq.128.
Follett, M. P. (1924) ‘Creative Experience’.
Fox, K. H. (2007) ‘Negotiation as a Post-Modern Process’.
Garcia, A. C. (2010) ‘The role of interactional competence in mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 205–228. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Gaynier, L. (2005) ‘Transformative mediation: In search of a theory of practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(3), pp. 397–408. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.110/abstract (Accessed: 22 January 2014).
Genn, H. (2012) ‘What is civil justice for? Reform, ADR, and access to justice’, Yale Journal of Law and
186
the Humanities, 24(1), pp. 397–417. Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/yallh24§ion=21.
Genn, H., Fenn, P., Mason, M., Lane, A., Bechai, N., Gray, L. and Vencappa, D. (2007) Twisting arms: court referred and court linked mediation under judicial pressure. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/judicial-institute/docs/Twisting_arms_mediation_report_Genn_et_al_1.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2013).
Gerami, A. (2009) ‘Bridging the theory and practice gap: Mediator power in practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 433–451. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Gergen, K. J. (1985) ‘The social constructionist movement in modern psychology.’, American Psychologist, 40(3), pp. 266–275. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.40.3.266.
Gergen, K. J. M. and Gergen, M. M. (2007) ‘Social Construction and Research Methodology’, in William Outhwaite & Stephen P. Turner (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology, pp. 461–479. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n25.
Gewurz, I. G. (2001) ‘(Re)Designing Mediation to Address the Nuances of Power Imbalance’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 135–162.
Gherardi, S. (2009) ‘Introduction: The Critical Power of the `Practice Lens’’, Management Learning, 40(2), pp. 115–128. doi: 10.1177/1350507608101225.
Glenn, P. and Kuttner, R. (2013) ‘Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: On empirical studies of ephemeral phenomena’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(1), pp. 13–31. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12001.
Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life.
Goldberg, R. M. (2009) ‘How our worldviews shape our practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 405–431. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Goldberg, S. B. (2005a) ‘How interest based, grievance performs over the long term’, Dispute Resolution Journal, (Nov 2004/January 2005).
Goldberg, S. B. (2005b) ‘In Practice The Secrets of Successful Mediators’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 365–376.
Goldberg, S. B. and Shaw, M. L. (2010) ‘The Past , Present , and Future of Mediation as Seen through the Eyes of Some of Its Founders’, Negotiation Journal, (April), pp. 237–253.
Goldstein, R., Zweibel, E., Manwaring, J. A. and Marks, M. B. (2008) ‘What Sticks:How Medical Residents and Academic Health Care Faculty Transfer Conflict Resolution Training from the Workshop to the Workplace’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 321–350. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Gorli, M., Nicolini, D. and Scaratti, G. (2015) ‘Reflexivity in practice: Tools and conditions for developing organizational authorship’, Human Relations, 68(8), pp. 1347–1375. doi: 10.1177/0018726714556156.
Van Gramberg, B. (2003) ‘ADR and workplace justice: Just settlement?’, Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 14.
Gray, D. E. (2007) ‘Facilitating management learning - Developing critical reflection through reflective tools’, Management Learning, 38(5), pp. 495–517. doi: 10.1177/1350507607083204.
187
Green, M. Z. (2005) ‘With ADR : Does Mediation Offer A Shield For The Haves Or Real Opportunity For The Have-Nots ?’, Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 26(2), pp. 321–361.
Greer, L. and Bendersky, C. (2013) ‘Power and Status in Conflict and Negotiation Research : Introduction to the Special Issue’, Negotiatation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4), pp. 239–252.
Habermas, J. (1970) ‘On systematically distorted communication’, Inquiry, 13(1–4), pp. 205–218. doi: 10.1080/00201747008601590.
Hansen, T. (2004) ‘The Narrative Approach to Mediation’, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 4, pp. 297–308.
Hedeen, T., Raines, S. and Barton, A. (2010) ‘Foundations of mediation training: A literature review of adult education and training design’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 157–182. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Herrman, M., Hollett, N., Eaker, D. G. and Gale, J. (2003) ‘Mediator reflections on practice: Connecting select demographics and preferred orientations’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(4), pp. 403–427. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.34/abstract (Accessed: 20 January 2014).
Herrman, M., Hollett, N. and Gale, J. (2006) ‘Mediation from Beginning to End: A Testable Model’, in Herrman, M. (ed.) Handbook of Mediation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 19–78.
Hoffman, D. A. and Wolman, R. N. (2003) ‘The psychology of mediation’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 14(2001), pp. 759–806.
Hunt, C. V., Kim, A., Borgida, E. and Chaiken, S. (2010) ‘Revisiting the self-interest versus values debate: The role of temporal perspective’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier Inc., 46(6), pp. 1155–1158. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.004.
Irvine, C. (2007) Mediation’s Values: An Examination of the Values Behind Five Mediation Texts. Birkbeck College, University of London. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1686195.
Irvine, C. (2008) Mediation and Social Norms.
Itten, A. (2017) ‘Context and Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 185–211.
Jackson, A. P., Hansen, J. and Cook-Ly, J. M. (2012) ‘Value Conflicts in Psychotherapy’, Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy, 35(1973), pp. 6–15.
Jameson, J., Sohan, D. and Hodge, J. (2014) ‘Turning Points and Conflict Transformation in Mediation’, Negotiation Journal, (April 2014), pp. 209–229. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nejo.12056/full (Accessed: 23 May 2014).
Jarrett, B. (2012) ‘Making Mediation Work: A Sociological View of Human Interaction’, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 40, pp. 1–26.
Järvensivu, T. and Törnroos, J.-Å. (2010) ‘Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration’, Industrial Marketing Management. Elsevier Inc., 39(1), pp. 100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.05.005.
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2006) ‘Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(3), pp.
188
131–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00124.x.
Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) ‘Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come’, Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp. 14–26.
Jorgensen, E. O., Moen, J. K., Antes, J. R., Hudson, D. T. and Hendrikson, L. H. (1999) ‘Indicators of Opportunities for Empowerment or Recognition’, in Joseph P Folger and Robert A Baruch Bush Designing Mediation (New York: Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation, 2001), pp. 1–19.
Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin. Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576 (Accessed: 9 October 2013).
Katz, N. H. and Sosa, A. (2015) ‘Mediating Value Conflicts’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Keevers, L. and Treleaven, L. (2011) ‘Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-based study’, Management Learning, 42(5), pp. 505–520. doi: 10.1177/1350507610391592.
Kelly, J. B. (1995) ‘Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation: Assessment and intervention’, Mediation Quarterly, 13(2), pp. 85–98. doi: 10.1002/crq.3900130203.
Kessels, U. (2013) ‘How epistemological beliefs relate to values and gender orientation’, Learning and Individual Differences. Elsevier Inc., 23, pp. 256–261. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.008.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001) ‘Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research Joe’, Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), pp. 679–692.
King, N. (2004a) ‘Using Interviews in Qualitative Research’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 11–23.
King, N. (2004b) ‘Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text’, in Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Klerman, D. and Klerman, L. (2015) ‘Inside the Caucus: An Empirical Analysis of Mediation from Within’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(4), pp. 686–715. doi: 10.1111/jels.12089.
Kolb, D. M. (1995) ‘The love for three oranges or: What did we miss about Ms. Follett in the library?’, Negotiation Journal, 11(4), pp. 339–348. doi: 10.1007/BF02187858.
Kovach, K. K. (2005) ‘Mediation’, in Michael L. Moffit, R. C. B. (ed.) The Handbook of Dispute Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 304–317.
Kovach, K. K. and Love, L. P. (1998) ‘Mapping Mediation : The Risks of Riskin’s Grid’, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 3, pp. 71–110.
Kressel, K. (1997) ‘Practice-Relevant Research in Mediation: Toward a Reflective Research Paradigm’, Negotiation Journal, (April 1997), pp. 143–160.
Kressel, K. (2007) ‘The Strategic Style in Mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 251–283. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Kressel, K. (2013) ‘How do Mediators Decide What to Do? Implicit Schemas of Practice and Mediator Decisionmaking’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 28(3), pp. 709–35.
Kressel, K., Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K. G., Mazzaro, K., Gozzi, C. and Kenneth, N. E. Z. (2015) ‘Putting
189
the peaces together: a situated model of mediation’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(2). Available at: http://www.donaldegibson.com/files/Who Ought to be Blamed_0.pdf (Accessed: 16 March 2015).
Kressel, K. and Gadlin, H. (2009) ‘Mediating Among Scientists : A Mental Model of Expert Practice’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(4), pp. 308–343.
Kressel, K., Henderson, T., Reich, W. and Cohen, C. (2012) ‘Multidimensional Analysis of Conflict Mediator Style’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(2), pp. 135–171. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Kressel, K. and Wall, J. (2012) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue on Mediator Style’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), pp. 334–339. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00110.x.
Kuttner, R. (2012) ‘Cultivating Dialogue : From Fragmentation to Relationality in’, Negotiation Journal, 28(3), pp. 315–335.
Kvale, S. (2007a) ‘Analyzing interviews’, in Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 102–120. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.n9.
Kvale, S. (2007b) ‘Validation and generalization of interview knowledge’, in Kvale, S. (ed.) Doing Interviews. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 121–129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963.n10.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson., M. (2008) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Lande, J. (2008) ‘Doing the Best Mediation You Can’, Dispute Resolution Magazine, 14(3). Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/gpsolo26§ion=34 (Accessed: 8 October 2013).
Lang, M. and Arms, R. (2017) Why Case Consultation/Reflective Practice Groups Matter for Mediators, Mediate.com. Available at: https://www.mediate.com/articles/langarmsreflective.cfm.
Lang, M. D. and Taylor, A. (2000) The Making of a Mediator: Developing Artistry in Practice. Jossey-Bass. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Mediator-Developing-Artistry/dp/0787949922 (Accessed: 9 October 2013).
Latreille, P. (2010) Mediation at work: of success, failure and fragility, Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service …. 6. Available at: http://cmpresolutions.co.uk/pdfs/Research_Paper_Mediation_at_work_Succes_Failure_and_Fragility.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2013).
Latreille, P. (2011) ‘Mediation: A thematic Review of the Acas/CIPD Evidence’, ACAS Paper. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/7/2/1311_Thematic_review_of_workplace_mediation.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2013).
Latreille, P. and Saundry, R. (2014) ‘Workplace Mediation’, in The Oxford Handbook of Conflict Management in Organizations, pp. 190–205.
Latreille, P. and Saundry, R. (2015) ‘Towards a system of conflict management? An evaluation of the impact of workplace mediation at Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’, Acas Paper, 15(2), pp. 1–48.
Lauer, R. H. and Handel, W. H. (1983) Social psychology: The theory and application of symbolic interactionism. Prentice-Hall.
Leathes, M. (2011) ‘Where in the world will mediation be in 10 years?’, ADR Bulletin, 12(4). Available
190
at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol12/iss4/1.
Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M. and Harrison, R. T. (2009) ‘The Philosophy and Practice of Interpretivist Research in Entrepreneurship: Quality, Validation, and Trust’, Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), pp. 67–84. doi: 10.1177/1094428109339839.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M. and Minton, J. W. (1999) Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases. Irwin/The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Lewis, T. and Umbriet, M. (2015) ‘A Humanistic Approach to Mediation and Dialogue: An Evolving Transformative Practic’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 32. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Leybourne, S. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2006) ‘The role of intuition and improvisation in project management’, International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 483–492. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.007.
Lieberman, E., Foux-Levy, Y. and Segal, P. (2005) ‘Beyond Basic Training:A Model for Developing Mediator Competence’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 237–257. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Lynham, S. a. (2011) ‘Criteria for assessing theory in human resource development from an interpretive perspective’, Human Resource Development International, 14(1), pp. 3–22. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.542895.
Linell, P. (2014) A Dialogical Notebook - Afterthoughts after Rethinking. Göteborg University.
Littlejohn, S. and Domenici, K. (2006) ‘A Facework Frame for Mediation’, in Herrmann, M. (ed.) Handbook of Mediation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 228–246.
Love, L. and Stulberg, J. (1996) ‘Practice guidelines for co-mediation: Making certain that “two heads are better than one”’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 179–189. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/crq.3900130304/abstract (Accessed: 9 January 2014).
De Luca, C. (2011) ‘Interpretive validity theory: Mapping a methodology for validating educational assessments’, Educational Research, 53(3), pp. 303–320. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2011.598659.
M.Crossan and M.Sorrenti (2002) ‘Making sense of improvisation’, in Kamoche, K., e Cunha, M., and Cunha, J. da (eds) Organizational improvisation. London, pp. 29–51.
Macfarlane, J. and Mayer, B. (2005) ‘What’s the use of theory?’, Dispute Resolution Magazine, 5, pp. 5–8.
Mareschal, P. M. (2003) ‘Solving Problems and Transforming Relationships: The Bifocal Approach to Mediation’, The American Review of Public Administration, 33(4), pp. 423–448. doi: 10.1177/0275074003258978.
Mareschal, P. M. (2005) ‘What Makes Mediation Work? Mediators’ Perspectives on Resolving Disputes*’, Industrial Relations, 44(3), pp. 509–517. doi: 10.1111/j.0019-8676.2005.00397.x.
Marshall, P. and Hurworth, R. (2009) ‘Mediation and qualitative research interviewing: commonality and difference’, ADR Bulletin, 11(7). Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol11/iss7/2/ (Accessed: 16 July 2014).
Mason, J. (2002) ‘Qualitative interviewing’, in Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 62–83. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Qualitative+interviewing#2 (Accessed: 21 August 2014).
191
Mayer, B. (1987) ‘The Dynamics of Power in Mediation and Negotiation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, (16), pp. 75–86.
Mayer, B. (2013) ‘Mediation: 50 Years of Creative Conflict’, Family Court Review, 51(1), pp. 34–41. doi: 10.1111/fcre.12005.
McKenzie, D. M. (2015) ‘The role of mediation in resolving workplace relationship conflict’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Elsevier Ltd, 39, pp. 52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.021.
McLachlan, C. J. and Garcia, R. J. (2015) ‘Philosophy in practice? Doctoral struggles with ontology and subjectivity in qualitative interviewing’, Management Learning, 46(2), pp. 195–210. doi: 10.1177/1350507615574634.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2000) ‘Mothers and Fathers of Invention: The Intellectual Founders of ADR’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 16(1), pp. 1–38.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2006) ‘Why hasn’t the world gotten to yes? An appreciation and some reflections’, Negotiation Journal, (October), pp. 485–503. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2006.00119.x/full (Accessed: 7 January 2014).
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2013) ‘The Historical Contingencies of Conflict Resolution’, International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, 55(1), pp. 32–55.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2015) ‘Mediation , Arbitration , and Alternative Dispute Resolution ( ADR )’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Ltd.
Menkel-Meadow, C. (2016) ‘The Case for Mediation : The Things that Mediators Should be Learning and Doing’, in Chartered Institute of Arbitrators 8th Symposium on Mediation, pp. 22–33.
Meth, P. and McClymont, K. (2009) ‘Researching men: the politics and possibilities of a qualitative mixed-methods approach’, Social & Cultural Geography, 10(8), pp. 909–925. doi: 10.1080/14649360903305775.
Milliken, P. J. (2012) ‘Examining the Nexus Between Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(5), pp. 684–696.
Mnookin, R. H. and Kornhauser, L. (1979) ‘Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce’, Yale Law Journal, pp. 950–997.
Moldjord, C. and Iversen, A. (2015) ‘Developing vulnerability trust in temporary high performance teams’, Team Performaance Management, 21(5/6), pp. 231–246.
Moore, C. W. (2014) The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. John Wiley & Sons.
Moore, C. W. A. (1983) General Theory of Mediation: Dynamics, Strategies and Moves. Rutgers University.
Moore, J. K. (2014) ‘The Reflective Observer Model’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Morris, G. (2015) ‘Eclecticism versus Purity: Mediation Styles Used in New Zealand Employment Disputes’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly. doi: 10.1002/crq.
192
Narine, A. (2017) ‘Power Imbalances in Mediation’, Havard Negotiation Law Review.
Nelson, N., Zarankin, A. and Ben-Ari, R. (2010) ‘Transformative Women, Problem-Solving Men? Not Quite: Gender and Mediators’ Perceptions of Mediation’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 287–308. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00274.x/full (Accessed: 20 January 2014).
Della Noce, D. (1999) ‘Seeing theory in practice: An analysis of empathy in mediation’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 271–301. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007599401576 (Accessed: 1 November 2013).
Della Noce, D. (2003) ‘From Practice to Theory to Practice: A Brief Retrospective on the Tranformative Mediation Model’, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 1. Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ohjdpr19§ion=33 (Accessed: 7 June 2014).
Della Noce, D. J., Bush, R. A. B. and Folger, J. P. (2002) ‘Clarifying the Theoretical Underpinnings of Mediation : Implications for Practice and Policy Clarifying the Theoretical Underpinnings of Mediation : Implications for Practice and Policy’, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 3(1), pp. 39–65.
Norcross, J. C. and Marvin R. Goldfried (2005) Handbook of psychotherapy integration. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pässilä, A. H., Oikarinen, T. and Harmaakorpi, V. (2015) ‘Collective Voicing as a Reflexive Practice’, Management Learning, 46(1), pp. 67–86. doi: 10.1177/1350507613488310.
Picard, C. (2000) The many meanings of mediation: A sociological study of mediation in Canada. Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario.
Picard, C. (2002) ‘In Practice: Common Language, Different Meaning: What Mediators Mean When They Talk About Their Work’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 251–269.
Picard, C. (2004) ‘Exploring an integrative framework for understanding mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(3), pp. 295–311. doi: 10.1002/crq.64.
Picard, C. and Jull, M. (2011) ‘Learning through deepening conversations: A key strategy of insight mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 151–176. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Picard, C. and Siltanen, J. (2013) ‘Exploring the Significance of Emotion for Mediation Practice’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 31(1), pp. 31–55. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Poitras, J. (2013) ‘The strategic use of caucus to facilitate parties trust in mediators’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(1), pp. 23–39. doi: 10.1108/10444061311296116.
Poitras, J., Hill, K., Hamel, V. and Pelletier, F.-B. (2015) ‘Managerial Mediation Competency : A Mixed-Method Study’, Negotiation Journal, (April), pp. 105–129.
Poyntz, R. (2012) Workplace Mediation in British Universities. Strathclyde.
Pretz, J. E., Brookings, J. B., Carlson, L. A., Humbert, T. K., Roy, M., Jones, M. and Memmert, D. (2014) ‘Development and validation of a new measure of intuition: The types of intuition scale’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(5), pp. 454–467. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1820.
Raider, E., Coleman, S. and Gerson, J. (2006) ‘Teaching Conflict Resolution Skills in a Workshop’, in Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., and Marcus, E. C. (eds) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and
193
Practice. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, pp. 695–725.
Raines, S., Pokhrel, S. K. and Poitras, J. (2013) ‘Mediation as a Profession: Challenges That Professional Mediators Face’, Conflict Resolution …, 31(1), pp. 79–97. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Ransome, P. (2010) Social theory for beginners. The Policy Press.
Relis, T. (2005) Parallel worlds of disputes and mediation. LSE.
Relis, T. (2009) Perceptions in litigation and mediation: lawyers, defendants, plaintiffs, and gendered parties. Cambridge University Press.
Reuben, R. (1999) ‘Constitutional gravity: a unitary theory of alternative dispute resolution and public civil justice’, Ucla L. Rev., 1, pp. 949–1104. Available at: http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/uclalr47§ion=29 (Accessed: 8 October 2013).
Ridley-Duff, R. and Bennett, A. (2011) ‘Towards mediation: developing a theoretical framework to understand alternative dispute resolution’, Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2), pp. 106–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2338.2011.00614.x.
Riskin, L. L. (1997) ‘Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed’, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 1(7).
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative Research Practice. Sage Publications Ltd.
Ritzer, G. and Smart, B. (2001) Handbook of social theory. Edited by G. Ritzer and B. Smart. Sage.
Roebuck, D. (2007) ‘The Myth of Modern Mediation’, Arbitration, 73(February), pp. 105–116.
Rooney, G. (2007) ‘The Use of Intuition in Mediation Greg’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 239–253. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Rooney, G. and Ross, M. (2012) ‘Shifting the Focus from Mediating the Problem to Mediating the Moment – Using Intuition as a Guide’, in Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference at the Supreme Court of Singapore. Singapore, pp. 1–20. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2140220 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2140220.
Rothman, J. (2014) ‘The Reflexive Mediator’, Negotiation Journal, (October), pp. 441–453.
Sargent, N., Picard, C. and Jull, M. (2011) ‘Rethinking Conflict : Perspectives from the Insight Approach’, Negotiation Journal, (July), pp. 343–366.
Saundry, R. (2012) ‘Conflict Resolution and Mediation at Bradford MDC A Case Study’, ACAS Paper, 12(8), pp. 1–28.
Saundry, R., Bennett, T. and Wibberley, G. (2013) ‘Workplace mediation: The participant experience’, ACAS Paper, 02(13).
Saundry, R., Bennett, T. and Wibberley, G. (2016) ‘Inside the mediation room - efficiency, voice and equity in workplace mediation’, International Journal of Human Resource Management. Routledge, 5192(May), pp. 1–21. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1180314.
Saundry, R., McArdle, L. and Thomas, P. (2011) ‘Transforming conflict management in the public sector? Mediation, Trade Unions and partnerships in a primary care trust’, Acas Paper, 11(1).
Saundry, R. and Wibberley, G. (2012) ‘Managing individual conflict in the privare sector’, Acas Paper,
194
12(5).
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. E. (2001) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Edited by D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1111/b.9780631205968.2003.x.
Schön, D. A. (1995) ‘Knowing -in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology.’, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), pp. 27–34. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544673.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O. and Konty, M. (2012) ‘Refining the theory of basic individual values.’, Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(4), pp. 663–88. doi: 10.1037/a0029393.
Schwinn, T. (2014) ‘Individual and Collective Agency’, in Outhwaite, W. and Turner, S. P. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 302–316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607958.n17.
Scrine, J. and Taylor, L. (2009) Disputes in your institution: Lessons to be learned -Transforming Policy and Practice in Dispute Resolution in HEIs: Available at: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/idr/index.html.
Seaman, R. (2010) Locating the mediator within workplace discourse : supporter of the status quo or humble ‘midwife’ of dialogue? : developing an alternative workplace mediation practice. Bournemouth University.
Seargeant, J. (2005) The Acas small firms’ mediation pilot. 04.
Shapira, O. (2009) ‘Exploring the Concept of Power in Mediation: Mediators’ Sources of Power and Influence Tactics’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 24(3), pp. 535–570.
Shibutani, T. (1975) Society and personality: An interactionist approach to social psychology. Transaction Publishers.
Shotter, J. (2009) ‘Situated Dialogic Action Research: Disclosing “‘Beginnings’” for Innovative Change in Organizations’, Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), pp. 268–285. doi: 10.1177/1094428109340347.
Simon, H. A. (2000) ‘Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow’, Mind & Society, 1(1), pp. 25–39. doi: 10.1007/BF02512227.
Smith, G. (2006) Erving Goffman. Routledge.
Smith, R. C. and Eisenberg, E. M. (1987) ‘“Conflict at Disneyland: A root metaphor analysis.”’, Communications Monographs, 54(4), pp. 367–380.
Soliman, C. (2014) ‘The Long Term Impact of Negotiation Training and Teaching Implications’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Stipanowich, T. J. (2016) ‘Insights on Mediator Practices and Perceptions’, Dispute Resolution Magazine, pp. 6–11.
Stokoe, E. and Sikveland, R. (2016) ‘Formulating solutions in mediation’, Journal of Pragmatics. Elsevier B.V., 105, pp. 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.08.006.
Susskind, L. (2015) ‘Behavioral Theory The Undecided Future of Negotiation Pedagogy : An Introduction’, Negotiation Journal, (October), pp. 461–464.
195
TCM (2016) Workplace Mediation. Available at: http://thetcmgroup.com/workplace-mediation/.
Tereanu, C. and Quattrocolo, A. (2011) ‘Transformative Mediation in Healthcare Organizations’, Management in Health, 15(1), pp. 16–23.
Urwin, P., Latreille, P. L. and Karuk, V. (2012) ‘Quantitative evidence in the evaluation of ADR : the case of judicial mediation in UK Employment Tribunals’, International journal of human resource management, 23(3), pp. 567–589.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004) ‘Theatrical Improvisation: Lessons for Organizations’, Organization Studies, 25(5), pp. 727–749. doi: 10.1177/0170840604042412.
Wall, J. A. and Dunne, T. C. (2012) ‘State of the Art Mediation Research : A Current Review’, Negotiation Journal, (April), pp. 217–244.
Wall, J. A. and Kressel, K. (2016) ‘Mediator Thinking in Civil Cases’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33. doi: 10.1002/crq.21185.
Wall, J. and Kressel, K. (2012) ‘Research on Mediator Style: A Summary and Some Research Suggestions’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(4), pp. 403–421. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2012.00117.x.
Walsh, S. (2015) ‘Beyond the Role-Play – Re-thinking Mediator Education’, Journal of Mediation & Applied Conflict Analysis, 2(2). Available at: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/6256/1/Article_Sabine_Walsh_FINAL_12.7.pdf.
Webley, L. (2010) ‘Gate-keeper, supervisor or mentor? The role of professional bodies in the regulation and professional development of solicitors and family mediators undertaking divorce matters in England and Wales’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 32(2), pp. 119–133. doi: 10.1080/09649069.2010.506308.
Weitzman, P. F. and Weitzman, E. A. (2000) ‘Interpersonal negotiation strategies in a sample of older women’, Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 6(1), pp. 41–51.
Weitzman, P. F. and Weitzman, E. A. (2006) ‘The PSD Model: Integrating Problem Solving and Decision Making in Conflict Resolution’, in Morton, D., Coleman, P. T., and Eric C. Marcus, E. (eds) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution - Theory and Practice. 2nd edn, pp. 197–222.
Wenger, E. (2000) ‘Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems’, Organization, 7(2), pp. 225–246. doi: 10.1177/135050840072002.
White, C. H. and Agne, R. R. (2009) ‘Communication Practices of Coaches During Mediator Training:Addressing Issues of Knowledge and Enactment’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 83–105. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Wing, L. (2009) ‘Mediation and Inequality Reconsidered: Bringing the Discussion to the Table’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 383–404. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Winslade, J. (2002) ‘Mediation with a Focus on Discursive Positioning’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(4), pp. 501–515. doi: 10.1002/crq.
Winslade, J. and Monk, G. (2002) ‘A Narrative Approach In Mediation’, Context, 63, pp. 9–12. Available at: http://www.findcommonground.org.uk/Documents/IntroductiontoNarrativeMediation.pdf.
Winslade, J., Monk, G. and Cotter, A. (1998) ‘In Theory A Narrative Approach to the Practice of
196
Mediation’, Negotiation Journal, (January), pp. 21–41.
Wiseman, V. and Poitras, J. (2002) ‘Mediation within a hierarchical structure: How can it be done successfully?’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 51–65. doi: 10.1002/crq.3890200105.
Wood, S., Saundry, R. and Latreille, P. (2014) ‘Analysis of the nature, extent and impact of grievance and disciplinary procedures and workplace mediation using WERS2011’, Acas Paper, 14(10), pp. 1–47.
Zarankin, A., Wall, J. and Zarankin, T. G. (2014) ‘Mediators’ Cognitive Role Schema’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 7(2), pp. 140–154. doi: 10.1111/ncmr.12030.
Zariski, A. (2010) ‘In Theory - A theory matrix for mediators’, Negotiation Journal, (April), pp. 203–235.
Zimmerman, S. (2009) ‘Judges gone wild: Why breaking the mediation confidentiality privilege for acting in “bad faith” should be reevaluated in court-ordered mandatory mediation’, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11, pp. 353–384.
197
Appendices Appendix 1
Interview Topics
Background:
Please describe your experience as a mediator – years, cases, areas of practice, experience of
co-mediation, practice models
Topic 1:
How can a better understanding of Social Interaction Theory contribute to consciously
integrated, flexible practice?
1. How does theory inform your practice as a mediator?
a. What theories of conflict do you draw on?
b. What theories of power do you draw on?
i. Between parties
ii. For the mediator
2. What do you see as the goal(s) of mediation?
3. In what ways do your personal values impact your practice?
a. How have these been derived?
4. In what ways has your practice developed over time?
5. Personal Style = Formal model(s) plus personal schema
a. How do you make decisions during mediation?
b. Are you flexible in style?
Topic 2:
How does co-mediation become effective given differing personal styles?
1. Within your mediation service:
a. Do you see a need for style flexibility?
b. How do you select pairs for co-mediation?
c. How do you assess your best mediator and best pair?
2. What makes an effective co-mediation
a. Good and bad examples?
3. How do you allow for differences in style?
4. How do you divide tasks?
5. How do you coordinate interventions?
198
Appendix 2
Questionnaire
Scale responses from 1 to 6 where: 1 = Strong Disagreement 6 = Strong Agreement
Mediation (is):
Response
A technique for resolving a conflict
A flexible procedure to resolve a conflict
A tool to create communication between people
Encourages one to help oneself
Reduces power inequality in society
Empowers the parties by strengthening their awareness of their self-worth
Enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the other’s needs
An economical procedure to resolve a conflict
A way of life
Is an educational experience
Allows for participants’ moral growth
Changes the character of the parties, and of society as a whole
The Goal of mediation is:
Response
To get the parties to agree
To bring about the resolution of the dispute
To create communication between the parties
To build trust between the parties
To create behavioural change between the parties
To empower the parties
To create a better society
To help parties reveal their interests
To help parties understand the various alternatives for resolving the conflict
Success in Mediation is:
Response
Achieving an agreement
Achieving an agreement that will show stability over time
When a party understands his/her own and the other party’s interests
When communication between the parties is enhanced
When a negotiation was carried out between the parties
When a party feels that his/her narrative was recognized
When parties better understand alternative solutions for resolving the conflict
When hostility between the parties is reduced
These survey questions are drawn from earlier research and the article: Transformative Women, Problem-
Solving Men? Not Quite: Gender and Mediators' Perceptions of Mediation, Negotiation Journal 2010
199
Appendix 3
Coding Structure
1. Survey
1. Mediation is…
I. A technique for resolving a conflict
II. A flexible procedure to resolve a conflict
III. A tool to create communication between people
IV. Encourages one to help oneself
V. Reduces power inequality in society
VI. Strengthens private people against the system
VII. Empowers the parties by strengthening their awareness of their self-worth
VIII. Enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the other’s needs
IX. An economical procedure to resolve a conflict
X. A way of life
XI. Is an educational experience
XII. Allows for participants’ moral growth
XIII. Changes the character of the parties, and of society as a whole
2. The goal of mediation is…
I. To get the parties to agree
II. To bring about the resolution of the dispute
III. To create communication between the parties
IV. To build trust between the parties
V. To create behavioural change between the parties
VI. To empower the parties
VII. To create a better society
VIII. To help parties reveal their interests
IX. To help parties understand the various alternatives for resolving the conflict
3. Success in mediation is…
I. Achieving an agreement
II. Achieving an agreement that will show stability over time
III. When a party understands his/her own and the other party’s interests
IV. When communication between the parties is enhanced
V. When a negotiation was carried out between the parties
VI. When a party feels that his/her narrative was recognized
VII. When parties better understand alternative solutions for resolving the conflict
VIII. When the procedure was pertinent
IX. When hostility between the parties is reduced
200
Coding Structure - Continued
2. Literature
1. Co-mediation
I. Allowance for style differences
II. How to coordinate interventions
III. How to divide tasks
IV. Need for style flexibility
V. Selection of pairings
VI. What makes effective co-mediation 2. Integrated Practice
I. Experience
1. Motivation
2. Qualification
3. Training
4. Work Experience
II. Flexibility
III. Personal style
IV. Personal values
V. Practice development
VI. Practice model
VII. Theory
VIII. Theories of conflict
IX. Theories of power
1. Mediator power
X. Theory in action
3. Emergent
1. Context
2. Decision-making
3. Mediator Flexibility
4. Metaphor
5. Neutrality
6. Reflexivity
7. Sense-making
201
Appendix 4
Group Presentation
202
203
204
205
206
Appendix 5
Reflective Practice
The reflective phase of the research is intended to build ‘practical theories of practice’, offering
professional development to the practitioner whilst addressing the research questions. It is an
extension of the topics raised and themes that have emerged from the interview and group phases
and enables these to be examined in greater depth in the context of actual mediations.
This phase of the research will run over a period of 9-12 months to enable participants to reflect on
a number of cases and consider changes in practice over time. There is however, no requirement
that a minimum number of cases be undertaken/reflected upon during this period.
When you are assigned a case that you’d like to include in the research could you kindly contact me
to arrange a time for a post-mediation reflective interview (by Skype). I’d also invite you to engage in
reflection as you prepare for the case and consider how your formulation (‘what’s this case about?’,
‘what should I do next?’) evolves during the mediation.
Reflective Prompts
I’m hoping to encourage reflection which is reflexive - thinking about who we are as mediators as we
practice - and explores the social interaction taking place in mediation and how that shapes your
practice. I’ve included below some prompts that might be helpful and I will also draw on material
from your individual interviews.
Reframing:
Reframing is a technique that has surfaced in group meetings and individual meetings. A recent blog
describes reframing as ‘recasting toxic language into more palatable forms; by chunking up or
chunking down the information provided by the parties; by restating proposals in ways that are likely
to be more acceptable to the other party; by shifting the context and time frame of the discussion;
or by redirecting the aim of the conversation’.
Is this how you understand and practice reframing? What does this say about your role as a
mediator? And the power you are exercising as a mediator?
One theorist suggests ‘we see reality as a result of the perspectives we take on through social
interaction and the groups whose perspectives we use are called our reference groups.’ Do you draw
on reference groups as a mediator and how might these influence your reframing?
Is the mediator’s role to help reveal objective frames for the dispute? Or provide an alternative
mediator frame? Or assist the parties to construct their own frames?
Habitual and Heedful Practice:
In our basic training we are provided a set of prescribed steps to follow. How far do you feel able to
depart from these and under what circumstances?
Mediators often espouse flexibility, an adaptation in our style of mediation that responds to each
case and disputants; we are said to be heedful. But how do we accomplish this? Are we experts in
207
recognising patterns and then applying the appropriate techniques? How does the interaction with
the parties influence our choice of interventions? How do the goals and needs of the parties emerge
during mediation and when/how do we respond?
Useful Knowledge:
What do mediators find to be useful knowledge (aka ‘theory’) and what does this say about them?
I have shared with many of you my own approach to starting joint meetings, namely to ask the
parties who’d like to speak first. This, for me, serves two purposes. It’s an invitation for the parties to
collaborate and it signals my role in facilitating (rather than controlling) the mediation process.
That’s useful knowledge I’ve developed from practice that appears to play well with participants.
Equally, it expresses my view of mediation and draws on my personal schema.
How has your practice evolved since basic training? What new knowledge have you generated?
Power:
Power is often thought about as being exercised, ‘over’ and ‘against’ and many of you spoke, in the
interviews, of hierarchical power between parties in mediation. On the other hand, you saw the
need to create a level playing field in mediation and this can be conceived as power ‘with’, a joint
and collaborative exercise of power.
How did these aspects of power play out in the case on which you are reflecting? What steps did you
take to encourage power ‘with’?
And turning to mediator power; how would you characterise your own exercise of power (over or
with) and what implications does that have?
208
Appendix 6
Questionnaire Statements
Purpose of mediation: ‘Mediation is…’
Q1 – A technique for resolving a conflict
Q2 – A flexible procedure to resolve a conflict
(Removed) – Increases power inequality in society
Q3 – A tool to create communication between people
Q4 – Encourages one to help oneself
Q5 – Reduces power inequality in society
(Removed) – Strengthens private people against the system
Q6 – Empowers the parties by strengthening their awareness of their self-worth
Q7 – Enhances people’s ability to recognize and attend to the other’s needs
Q8 – An economical procedure to resolve a conflict
Q9 – A way of life
(Removed) – Perpetuates injustice against the weak and ignores the achievements of groups
Q10 – Is an educational experience
Q11 – Allows for participants’ moral growth
Q12 – Changes the character of the parties, and of society as a whole
Goals of mediation: ‘The goal of mediation is…’
Q13 – To get the parties to agree
Q14 – To bring about the resolution of the dispute
Q15 – To create communication between the parties
Q16 – To build trust between the parties
Q17 – To create behavioural change between the parties
Q18 – To empower the parties
Q19 – To create a better society
Q20 – To help parties reveal their interests
209
Q21 – To help parties understand the various alternatives for resolving the conflict
Success criteria in mediation: ‘Success in mediation is…’
Q22 – Achieving an agreement
Q23 – Achieving an agreement that will show stability over time
Q24 – When a party understands his/her own and the other party’s interests
Q25 – When communication between the parties is enhanced
Q26 – When a negotiation was carried out between the parties
Q27 – When a party feels that his/her narrative was recognized
Q28 – When parties better understand alternative solutions for resolving the conflict
(Removed) – When the procedure was pertinent
Q29 – When hostility between the parties is reduced
210
Appendix 7
Pearson Correlations – Statements 1-12, Gender and Experience (Cases)
Pearson Correlations – Statements 13-21, Gender and Experience (cases)
Cases Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Gender
Cases 1 .081 -.047 -.060 .063 .229 -.154 -.344 -.403 -.016 .148
Q13 .081 1 0.52 0.487 -.098 -.072 -.223 -.404 .291 .009 -.284
Q14 -.047 0.52 1 .434 -.089 .036 -.098 -.387 .380 -.021 -.265
Q15 -.060 0.487 .434 1 .040 -.016 -.088 -.143 .318 .357 -.265
Q16 .063 -.098 -.089 .040 1 0.649 .319 .252 -.194 0.47 .203
Q17 .229 -.072 .036 -.016 0.649 1 0.539 .064 -.307 .318 .185
Q18 -.154 -.223 -.098 -.088 .319 0.539 1 0.618 -.177 .359 .224
Q19 -.344 -.404 -.387 -.143 .252 .064 0.618 1 .021 .298 .124
Q20 -.403 .291 .380 .318 -.194 -.307 -.177 .021 1 .019 .038
Q21 -.016 .009 -.021 .357 0.47 .318 .359 .298 .019 1 -.120
Gender .148 -.284 -.265 -.265 .203 .185 .224 .124 .038 -.120 1
Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) in red
Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) in blue
n = 18
Cases Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Gender
Cases 1 .101 .195 -.227 -.156 -.038 -.183 .050 -.118 -0.586 -.058 -.054 -.088 .148
Q1 .101 1 -.238 .139 -.054 .128 -.164 -.372 .337 .141 -.147 -.060 .100 -0.483
Q2 .195 -.238 1 -.399 -.241 -0.516 -.282 -.111 .049 -.115 .116 -.103 -0.486 .150
Q3 -.227 .139 -.399 1 -.036 -.102 -.217 -.086 .195 .029 -.045 -.389 -.104 -.090
Q4 -.156 -.054 -.241 -.036 1 .291 0.486 0.628 .232 -.207 -.184 .187 .350 .229
Q5 -.038 .128 -0.516 -.102 .291 1 .270 .370 .317 .066 -.049 0.604 0.645 .352
Q6 -.183 -.164 -.282 -.217 0.486 .270 1 0.609 -.165 .305 -.004 .339 0.605 .215
Q7 .050 -.372 -.111 -.086 0.628 .370 0.609 1 .085 -.182 -.052 .400 0.492 0.471
Q8 -.118 .337 .049 .195 .232 .317 -.165 .085 1 -.169 .061 .060 -.013 .155
Q9 -0.586 .141 -.115 .029 -.207 .066 .305 -.182 -.169 1 .304 .272 .316 -.085
Q10 -.058 -.147 .116 -.045 -.184 -.049 -.004 -.052 .061 .304 1 .217 -.009 .132
Q11 -.054 -.060 -.103 -.389 .187 0.604 .339 .400 .060 .272 .217 1 0.496 .331
Q12 -.088 .100 -0.486 -.104 .350 0.645 0.605 0.492 -.013 .316 -.009 0.496 1 .089
Gender.148 -0.483 .150 -.090 .229 .352 .215 0.471 .155 -.085 .132 .331 .089 1
211
Pearson Correlations – Statements 22-28, Gender and Experience (Cases)
Cases Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Gender
Cases 1 .099 .337 -.291 -.161 -.419 -.441 -.209 -.176 .148
Q22 .099 1 0.511 .256 -.010 0.646 -.220 0.596 .431 .517*
Q23 .337 0.511 1 -.149 -.402 .247 -.162 .079 .319 .396
Q24 -.291 .256 -.149 1 .160 .259 .212 0.519 -.139 .053
Q25 -.161 -.010 -.402 .160 1 -.073 .282 .062 .185 -.222
Q26 -.419 0.646 .247 .259 -.073 1 .037 .250 .364 .234
Q27 -.441 -.220 -.162 .212 .282 .037 1 -.044 .073 -.372
Q28 -.209 0.596 .079 0.519 .062 .250 -.044 1 .318 .181
Q29 -.176 .431 .319 -.139 .185 .364 .073 .318 1 -.244
Gender .148 .517
* .396 .053 -.222 .234 -.372 .181 -.244 1
Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) in red
Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) in blue
n = 18
212
Appendix 8
One-way ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Q1 Between Groups 3.180 1 3.180 4.878 .042
Within Groups 10.431 16 .652
Q2 Between Groups .414 1 .414 .367 .553
Within Groups 18.031 16 1.127
Q3 Between Groups .069 1 .069 .131 .722
Within Groups 8.431 16 .527
Q4 Between Groups 1.170 1 1.170 .887 .360
Within Groups 21.108 16 1.319
Q5 Between Groups 3.180 1 3.180 2.269 .152
Within Groups 22.431 16 1.402
Q6 Between Groups .719 1 .719 .772 .393
Within Groups 14.892 16 .931
Q7 Between Groups 3.501 1 3.501 4.563 .048
Within Groups 12.277 16 .767
Q8 Between Groups .670 1 .670 .396 .538
Within Groups 27.108 16 1.694
Q9 Between Groups .247 1 .247 .116 .738
Within Groups 34.031 16 2.127
Q10 Between Groups .247 1 .247 .282 .603
Within Groups 14.031 16 .877
Q11 Between Groups 5.470 1 5.470 1.975 .179
Within Groups 44.308 16 2.769
Q12 Between Groups .192 1 .192 .127 .727
Within Groups 24.308 16 1.519
Q13 Between Groups 2.975 1 2.975 1.401 .254
Within Groups 33.969 16 2.123
Q14 Between Groups .534 1 .534 1.208 .288
Within Groups 7.077 16 .442
Q15 Between Groups .219 1 .219 1.210 .288
Within Groups 2.892 16 .181
Q16 Between Groups .931 1 .931 .690 .418
Within Groups 21.569 16 1.348
Q17 Between Groups .534 1 .534 .567 .462
Within Groups 15.077 16 .942
Q18 Between Groups .931 1 .931 .848 .371
Within Groups 17.569 16 1.098
213
Q19 Between Groups .578 1 .578 .249 .625
Within Groups 37.200 16 2.325
Q20 Between Groups .055 1 .055 .023 .881
Within Groups 37.723 16 2.358
Q21 Between Groups .492 1 .492 .235 .634
Within Groups 33.508 16 2.094
Q22 Between Groups 4.937 1 4.937 5.848 .028
Within Groups 13.508 16 .844
Q23 Between Groups 2.975 1 2.975 2.981 .104
Within Groups 15.969 16 .998
Q24 Between Groups .055 1 .055 .044 .836
Within Groups 19.723 16 1.233
Q25 Between Groups .309 1 .309 .827 .377
Within Groups 5.969 16 .373
Q26 Between Groups 2.223 1 2.223 .929 .349
Within Groups 38.277 16 2.392
Q27 Between Groups .623 1 .623 2.571 .128
Within Groups 3.877 16 .242
Q28 Between Groups .931 1 .931 .540 .473
Within Groups 27.569 16 1.723
Q29 Between Groups .623 1 .623 1.009 .330
Within Groups 9.877 16 .617